Matthew E. Wright

Following a 9-day family law trial, the court ruled on costs.

The applicant had claimed $450,000 and multiple extraordinary remedies but was only awarded $83,851.40 for an unequal division of net family property.

The court found the applicant had severely over-litigated the matter, unnecessarily extending a 1.5-day trial into 9 days.

Applying Rule 57.01, the court apportioned costs based on success, awarding the applicant 16% of her costs and the respondent 84% of his costs.

This resulted in a net costs award of $81,262.47 payable by the applicant to the respondent, which was set off against the trial judgment.

Following a four-year marriage and an eight-year relationship, the applicant sought an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6)(h) of the Family Law Act.

The parties had engaged in a joint venture to purchase a dairy farm, for which the applicant contributed $230,000 from the sale of her home, while the respondent put up his solely-owned properties as collateral but had over $205,000 of his mortgages paid off.

The court found that an equal division would be unconscionable given the stark contrast in proportional loss and gain.

The applicant was awarded one-half of the increase in value of the respondent's properties during the marriage, resulting in a net payment of $83,851.40.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' appeal and the defendant Van Dusen's cross-appeal, the successful defendants sought their costs.

Van Dusen sought costs on a partial and substantial indemnity basis, relying on an offer to settle, while the Health Unit sought partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded Van Dusen $5,125.00, reflecting partial indemnity costs up to the date of his offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The Health Unit was awarded $4,237.52 on a partial indemnity basis, with the court reducing both defendants' claimed amounts to reflect a fair and reasonable award.

The appellants appealed a Deputy Judge's decision dismissing their claim for damages arising from a failed septic system as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

They argued the Deputy Judge erred by not making an explicit finding under s. 5(1)(a)(iv) regarding whether a proceeding was an appropriate remedy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that once the Deputy Judge determined the objective discoverability date under s. 5(1)(b), no explicit finding under s. 5(1)(a)(iv) was required.

The respondent's cross-appeal for leave to appeal the costs award was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claims for fraud and conspiracy against a former employee and a supplier.

The employee had arranged for the supplier to provide gifts to employees in lieu of overtime pay, using falsified invoices to conceal the purchases from the corporate parent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions that the company suffered no actual damage and that the defendants lacked the requisite intent to cause harm.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument that the trial judge's comments during the hearing created a reasonable apprehension of bias.