Mary Anne Cummings

The applicant moved to vary a 2012 order to terminate child and spousal support.

The court denied the applicant's request to amend pleadings at trial to seek earlier child support termination dates.

Child support was terminated on consent effective May 2016, and the respondent was ordered to pay $5,350 for her share of retroactive post-secondary education expenses.

The court dismissed the motion to terminate spousal support, finding that despite the respondent's conjugal relationship and increased income, her compensatory entitlement from the 20-year marriage had not yet been exhausted.

The plaintiff purchased a sunroom installed by the defendant in 2001 and experienced severe problems with it during the first winter.

The plaintiff commenced an action for rescission of the contract in December 2010.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred.

The court granted the motion, finding that the cause of action was discovered by the end of the winter of 2001/2002, making the six-year limitation period under the 1990 Limitations Act applicable.

Even under the 2002 Limitations Act, the court found the action was out of time, as the plaintiff knew or ought to have known that a legal proceeding was appropriate by February 2007 at the latest.

The appellant husband appealed an order from the Superior Court of Justice (Family Court Branch) in which the presiding judge severed the husband's divorce claim and made substantive orders in favour of the wife, including orders regarding pension division and an extension of the limitation period under the Family Law Act.

The wife had not filed an answer and may have been in default.

The Court of Appeal found that while the court could impose terms to secure the wife's participation, it was not open to the court to grant substantive relief in favour of the wife that had not been sought.

The order was set aside and the matter was remitted to a different judge.

The appellant did not attend for argument of the appeal and advised the respondents' counsel that she would not be attending.

The appellant was self-represented, having filed a Notice of Intention to Act in person.

The appeal was dismissed as abandoned, and the respondents were awarded costs in the amount of $9,000, inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes.

The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from breaching non-competition, non-solicitation, and trade name use covenants following the sale of a business.

The court applied the modified injunction test for restrictive covenants, finding a strong prima facie case of breach by the defendants, directly and indirectly through an employee and his company.

The court drew an adverse inference from the defendants' failure to provide an affidavit from the key employee.

Irreparable harm was presumed and also found on evidence of lost sales and market confusion.

The balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs, as the defendants' alleged breaches were deliberate.

The injunction was granted, along with an order for production of the defendants' general ledger and customer lists.

The applicant was successful on a motion and sought costs.

The respondent agreed that the applicant was entitled to costs and that the requested amount was reasonable, despite disagreeing with the applicant's cost submissions.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the agreed-upon costs of $45,020.56.

Following repeated adjournment requests by the applicant in a family trial and the eventual adjournment after medical evidence indicated the applicant was unfit to attend, the respondent sought costs thrown away.

The court reviewed the principles governing costs thrown away under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

Even absent fault, a party responsible for an adjournment may be required to compensate the opposing party for wasted trial preparation.

The court found the applicant responsible for the adjournment and awarded the respondent full indemnity costs thrown away for wasted preparation and court attendances, together with partial indemnity costs of the costs motion.

The court addressed disputes regarding the interpretation and implementation of Minutes of Settlement in estate litigation between family members and an estate trustee during litigation.

Following earlier endorsements clarifying settlement terms, the judge directed the parties to submit competing draft orders reflecting the intended disposition.

The principal issues concerned the timing of a payment obligation tied to a $500,000 amount from an estate interest and whether provisions addressing the estate trustee’s role should appear in the final order.

Applying a “final offer selection” approach, the court concluded that the draft orders proposed by the estate trustee most accurately reflected the settlement and prior endorsements.

The court therefore signed and entered those orders.

The respondent mother requested an addendum to a costs order to stipulate that the $54,700 costs award is enforceable under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996.

The applicant father opposed the request, arguing that his recent bankruptcy filing extinguished the debt.

The court rejected the father's argument, noting that support debts are not extinguished by bankruptcy and that the costs order related to a trial where spousal and child support were key issues.

The court granted the request, ordering the costs to be treated as a support order enforceable under the Act.

Following a trial in a construction lien action in which the plaintiff obtained judgment exceeding its offer to settle, the court considered competing costs submissions.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs relying on Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the defendants’ conduct during litigation.

The court held the plaintiff was presumptively entitled to partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

After considering Rule 57.01 factors and proportionality, the court reduced the requested fees but awarded substantial overall costs.

The defendants were ordered to pay $54,088.99 in costs inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following a four‑day family law trial in which the respondent mother was successful on issues of spousal support, child support, medical benefits coverage, and compliance with a prior order, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful party sought full recovery of over $72,000 in legal fees and disbursements.

The court found that although the mother was clearly the successful party and the father had behaved unreasonably in some respects, the offer to settle had not been technically met or exceeded.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court awarded partial indemnity costs for the period prior to a change in counsel and substantial recovery thereafter.

The court fixed total costs at $54,700 payable within thirty days.

The plaintiff contractor brought a claim under the Construction Lien Act for unpaid amounts on a residential renovation project, including significant extras billed on a time and materials basis.

The defendant homeowners argued the contract was for a fixed price and counterclaimed for defective and incomplete work.

The court found the plaintiff credible and the defendants lacking in credibility, concluding the defendants had agreed to the extras.

The court dismissed the majority of the counterclaim, allowing only a minor set-off conceded by the plaintiff, and awarded the plaintiff $44,658.90 including pre-judgment interest.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated after a 13-year marriage.

The mother, who was the primary caregiver and suffered from severe medical disabilities, sought ongoing spousal support, child support, and section 7 expenses.

The father argued he could not afford the support and disputed certain expenses.

The court found the mother entitled to indefinite spousal support on both compensatory and need bases, ordering the father to pay $1,891 monthly.

The court also ordered the father to pay ongoing child support, his share of section 7 expenses including cell phones and YMCA memberships, and outstanding arrears from a prior consent order.

The appellant obtained a default judgment against the respondent for unpaid farming services invoices, including interest at 24 per cent per annum.

Six years later, the respondent moved to set aside the default judgment, arguing he never agreed to the 24 per cent interest rate.

The motion judge found the respondent had an arguable defence regarding the interest rate and varied the default judgment to substitute a 5 per cent interest rate under Rule 19.08.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred by making a final determination on the merits of the interest rate rather than simply setting aside that portion of the default judgment to allow the respondent to file a defence.

The applicant brought a motion for retroactive and ongoing child support and spousal support following separation after a lengthy marriage with two children.

The court reviewed principles of spousal support entitlement, including compensatory and non‑compensatory bases, and considered whether income should be imputed to the applicant.

The court found the applicant was not intentionally underemployed and declined to impute additional income to her.

Using the respondent’s income of $58,023.54, the court ordered retroactive child support for the period following separation, ongoing guideline child support, and retroactive and ongoing spousal support calculated at the mid‑range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Payment of retroactive support was ordered from the respondent’s share of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home.

The court determined the appropriate costs award following earlier proceedings between a farming corporation and a contractor.

The defendant had previously made a timely offer to settle that was more favourable to the plaintiff than the ultimate decision, which weighed strongly in favour of a costs award to the defendant.

The court also recognized that the defendant achieved substantial success in reducing the applicable interest rate from 24% to 5%.

However, prejudice suffered by the plaintiff due to the defendant’s conduct prior to initiating the application justified a partial reduction of the defendant’s claimed costs.

The court therefore reduced the defendant’s claimed costs and ordered payment of the adjusted amount.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 19.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a 2005 default judgment, but ultimately limited the relief sought to varying the contractual interest rate imposed by the judgment.

The court applied the three‑part test governing motions to set aside default judgments, including delay, explanation for the default, and the existence of an arguable defence.

While the defendant failed to adequately explain the delay and prejudice existed due to the passage of time, the court found an arguable defence regarding the 24% contractual interest rate claimed by the plaintiff.

Evidence showed the parties had a longstanding neighbourly farming relationship in which interest had never historically been charged and there was no clear agreement to pay interest at that rate.

The court concluded that the defendant had not agreed to the contractual interest and varied the judgment to apply interest at 5% per year instead.

Following an eleven‑day custody and access trial, the applicant father was entirely successful and was awarded primary care of the children.

The court found that the respondent mother's conduct caused parental alienation, denied access, and unnecessarily prolonged the litigation.

Although the court declined to find bad faith under the Family Law Rules, it concluded the respondent had acted unreasonably and that the applicant had bettered his offer to settle.

Balancing the factors under Rule 24, the court ordered costs on a full recovery basis.

The respondent was ordered to pay legal fees, disbursements, and her unpaid share of parenting coordinator fees.

The appellant worked on his family's dairy farm for 24 years, alleging an oral agreement with his parents that he would receive the farm property and assets when they stopped farming.

After his father died without transferring the farm or changing his will, the appellant brought an action for a declaration of beneficial entitlement.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding no oral agreement due to the lack of signed documents and rejecting the application of the doctrine of part performance.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by requiring written documents for an oral agreement and by incorrectly applying the doctrine of part performance.

A new trial was ordered on all issues.

Following a bifurcated family law trial concerning custody and access, the court determined the appropriate parenting arrangement for two children of the marriage.

Although the children had primarily resided with the mother since separation, the evidence established a sustained pattern of parental alienation, denial of access, and non‑cooperation with parenting coordination and court processes by the mother.

The court found the father to be a credible and cooperative parent committed to facilitating the children's relationship with the other parent and adhering to the maximum contact principle.

Applying the best interests of the children test under the Divorce Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court concluded the mother's conduct was harmful to the children’s relationship with their father and unlikely to change.

Primary care of the children was therefore awarded to the father with a structured parenting plan.