Matthew J. Armstrong

Following an appeal in a class proceeding, the parties and the Law Foundation of Ontario made a joint submission regarding costs.

The Court of Appeal ordered the appellants to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal fixed at $30,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellants contracted with the respondent to repair fire damage to their property.

The project was overseen by a third party who fraudulently requested and retained personal payments from the appellants.

The trial judge found the appellants liable to the respondent for the outstanding contract amount, concluding the third party lacked actual or ostensible authority to receive personal payments on the respondent's behalf.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's application of the governing principles of ostensible authority.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their class proceeding for delay under s. 29.1(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The motion judge found that the appellants failed to file a certification motion record or establish a timetable for steps required to advance the proceeding within one year of commencement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, confirming that while a contextual approach applies to determining whether a timetable for required steps was established, the one-year deadline is mandatory and no such timetable existed here.

The court also rejected arguments regarding waiver, the availability of a Phoenix order, and the effect of adding a new plaintiff.

The parties separated after their four-year-old child ingested a small amount of a marijuana cookie left accessible by the father.

The mother unilaterally relocated with the child to Toronto and withheld contact.

Both parties sought primary care and sought to introduce surreptitious recordings of each other.

The court excluded the secret recordings, condemning the practice in family law.

The court ordered shared primary care on a 3-1-3 schedule proposed by the father, emphasizing the child's best interests and discouraging unilateral self-help measures.

The moving parties (two fathers) sought full indemnity costs of approximately $75,000 following a successful motion that changed the respondent mother's parenting time to supervised access.

The court found that while the fathers were successful and presumptively entitled to costs, their claim was unreasonable and disproportionate for a one-hour motion.

The court also criticized the unnecessary and ill-conceived contempt motion brought by one of the fathers, which unnecessarily complicated the proceedings.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $20,000, apportioned equally between the fathers.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following two successful motions for child support brought by fathers N. and R. against mother A. The fathers sought full indemnity costs, while the mother argued for no costs due to alleged divided success and her own offers to settle.

The court rejected both extreme positions, finding no merit in full indemnity or no costs.

Applying the presumption that successful parties are entitled to some costs, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to each father, reducing their requested amounts due to some overlap between their original motions.

The respondent mother brought a 14B motion to determine who should conduct her court-ordered psychiatric assessment and what documents should be provided to the assessor.

The mother, applicant father, and respondent father each proposed a different psychiatrist.

The court selected the respondent father's proposed assessor, finding him to be the most qualified for adult psychiatric diagnoses.

The court also ordered that all prior orders, including those made without prejudice, be provided to the assessor.

Two fathers brought separate motions seeking temporary child support and section 7 expenses from the mother for their respective children.

The mother admitted her obligation to pay but disputed the amounts, the retroactive date, and claimed undue hardship.

The court ordered the mother to pay Table child support based on an agreed income of $117,360 and 50% of section 7 expenses for both children, retroactive to September 1, 2020, when the demands were first made.

The court dismissed the mother's undue hardship claim at this stage, encouraging her to reduce her supervised access costs first.

Following an eight-day family law trial, the applicant sought costs.

The applicant had made two offers to settle, and the trial result was significantly better than her last offer.

The respondent argued against the costs claimed, citing various procedural steps and alleged hardship.

The court rejected the respondent's arguments, noting his bad faith conduct throughout the proceedings, including hiding income, breaching court orders, and threatening the applicant.

The court awarded the applicant full indemnity costs of $65,030.53 pursuant to Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

Following a 26-year marriage, the applicant sought spousal support, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the applicant entitled to compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, supporting her return to university to become a registered nurse.

Income was imputed to the respondent due to unexplained spending exceeding his declared income.

The court ordered the respondent to pay combined ongoing support, arrears, and his proportionate share of section 7 expenses.

The applicant was ordered to pay an equalization payment, subject to post-separation adjustments owed by the respondent.