McGee

The defendant, the surviving spouse of the deceased, brought a motion to extend the limitation period to file a spousal election for an equalization payment under section 6(1) of the Family Law Act.

The plaintiff, the deceased's brother and purported executor, opposed the extension.

The court applied the three-part test under section 2(8) of the Family Law Act and found that there were apparent grounds for relief, the delay was incurred in good faith due to reliance on a prior consent, and no substantial prejudice would result.

The motion was granted, allowing the defendant 60 days to file the election.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for the return of the parties' child to Ontario and disclosure of her address.

The respondent mother had taken the child to Mauritius, agreed to return her to Canada in a Hague Convention proceeding, but instead unilaterally relocated to Alberta.

The mother brought a cross-motion arguing Alberta was the proper jurisdiction.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act because the child's habitual residence remained in Ontario, as she was removed without consent and the father did not acquiesce.

The court ordered a Case Conference to determine the next steps.

In a high-conflict family law trial, the court determined issues of child support, spousal support, and equalization following a four-year litigation history.

The applicant mother sought an unequal division of net family property and high support amounts, resisting the sale of the heavily encumbered matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the claims for unequal division, ordered the home sold, and imputed income to both parties.

The applicant was found to have acted in bad faith by filing false Statements of Arrears.

The court ordered the applicant to reimburse the respondent for her proportionate share of Section 7 expenses and post-separation adjustments out of her equalization payment.

The respondent mother brought a motion to set aside terms of a final consent order, claiming the applicant father had undisclosed corporate interests.

After the father's civil litigation regarding those interests failed, the mother continued her family law proceeding but ultimately withdrew it on the eve of trial.

The father sought costs of $105,504.

The court found the mother's continued litigation after the civil suit failed was unreasonable.

Applying Rule 12(3) of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the father costs.

The court declined to award full recovery under Rule 18(14) because the father's offer to settle did not remain open until the hearing.

Costs were fixed at $51,076 on a partial recovery basis.

Following a lengthy contract dispute where the defendant was wholly successful, the defendant sought costs against the plaintiff.

The court found that the plaintiff had registered a grossly inflated construction lien, failed to make or accept reasonable settlement offers, refused to admit facts, and engaged in spoliation of evidence.

Applying the costs provisions of the Construction Lien Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded the defendant substantial indemnity costs of $135,000.

The court declined to hold the plaintiff's principal personally liable for costs as he was not a party to the proceeding and no finding of fraud was made against him.

The plaintiff subcontractor sued the defendant contractor for unpaid invoices and registered a construction lien regarding a school gymnasium project.

The defendant counterclaimed for back charges due to the plaintiff's delays and failure to complete the contracted steel fabrication and erection work.

The court found the plaintiff breached the contract by failing to perform the work on schedule, entitling the defendant to back charges.

The court awarded the plaintiff a reduced amount of $20,000, calculated as the remaining contract balance less the defendant's proven back charges.

The applicant sought costs for an ex-parte motion where she obtained Certificates of Pending Litigation on five properties.

The court declined to award costs, finding that the urgency of the ex-parte motion was overstated, the applicant had not requested voluntary preservation prior to moving without notice, and the respondent acted reasonably by consenting to the certificates remaining on title once notified.

Following a trial of an issue regarding shareholder oppression and the valuation of shares, the applicant sought substantial indemnity costs of over $618,000.

The court found the applicant was only partially successful and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The court significantly reduced the requested quantum because the applicant's costs submissions lacked detail and the applicant engaged in unreasonable litigation conduct by refusing to allow experts to confer and resisting settlement efforts.

The court awarded the applicant $138,425 in costs, which included $2,500 for costs thrown away due to the respondent's improper communication with a witness during cross-examination.

The applicant father brought a motion for equal parenting time with the parties' two young children, while the respondent mother sought to restrict his time to alternate weekends.

The mother had previously removed the children to Prince Edward Island without notice and subsequently gatekept the father's parenting time upon their return to Ontario.

The court found that the mother's withholding of the children was not child-focused and that the children needed regular, frequent contact with both parents.

Applying the best interests of the child factors under the Children's Law Reform Act and referencing AFCC guidelines, the court ordered an alternating Week 1 and Week 2 schedule to ensure the children are not away from either parent for more than five days.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that the parties had been separated for over one year to proceed with a simple divorce application.

The respondent opposed, arguing the motion was premature and that an Ontario divorce would prejudice her claims in India.

The court found the parties had been separated for over one year, noted the respondent had withdrawn her annulment claim, and held there was no evidence of actual prejudice to justify withholding the divorce.

The applicant minority shareholder sought a determination of the purchase price for her 40% interest in a real estate holding corporation owned with her former spouse.

The court found that the respondent majority shareholder engaged in oppressive conduct by failing to provide financial disclosure, operating the corporation solely for the benefit of his separate operating company, and destroying corporate records.

To remedy the oppression, the court valued the applicant's shares at $1,832,054.60 without applying a minority discount.

Following a 22-day parenting trial and a withdrawn motion for contempt, the successful respondent father sought full recovery of his costs totaling $668,930.

The court found the applicant mother's litigation conduct to be unreasonable, including her misuse of a contempt motion and failure to accept a reasonable offer to settle.

The court awarded the respondent costs of $611,637, representing full recovery for the period after his offer to settle and for defending the contempt motion, and a partial recovery for the pre-offer period.

The court declined to order the applicant's counsel to pay the costs personally but granted the applicant leave to bring a motion against her counsel under Rule 24(9).

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final consent order to terminate the respondent father's parenting time and relocate the child to Montreal.

The father sought sole decision-making and an equal parenting schedule.

The court found the mother had engaged in a pattern of high-conflict litigation, terminated the child's therapy, and failed to act in the child's best interests.

Relying on the 13-year-old child's strong views and preferences, the court granted the father sole decision-making responsibility and took the unusual step of leaving parenting time with the mother entirely to the child's discretion.

The mother's motion was dismissed, and she was ordered to pay child support.

Following a nine-week high-conflict parenting trial where the applicant father was wholly successful and the respondent mother was found in contempt and to have acted in bad faith, the court determined costs.

The father beat multiple offers to settle.

The court awarded the father costs on a full recovery basis for the trial and contempt motion, and partial recovery for pre-trial steps, fixing the total costs at $677,610 inclusive of HST and disbursements, to be set off against spousal support and equalization.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary parenting order to allow for unsupervised, expanded parenting time.

The applicant mother opposed, citing a history of severe family violence and the father's prior criminal convictions.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) recommended a stepped-up supervised parenting plan, which the father rejected.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding no compelling circumstances to alter the status quo or bypass the OCL's recommendations, and emphasized the need to protect the children's safety and well-being.

Following a successful motion by the applicant father for a Section 30 parenting assessment, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs.

The applicant sought full recovery of $13,704.08 based on an offer to settle, while the respondent argued for no costs or a maximum of $5,000.

The court found the applicant's offer to settle was as favourable as the final order and that the respondent's conduct in opposing the motion was unreasonable.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $11,017.50 inclusive of HST.

The father appealed a final family arbitration award that resolved parenting, child support, spousal support, and property issues.

He alleged procedural unfairness, bias, and errors in the arbitrator's parenting and financial decisions.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact.

The court held that the arbitrator's decisions, including imputing income due to the father's non-disclosure and awarding primary residence to the mother, were amply supported by the evidence and entitled to significant deference.

The applicant father brought a motion to enforce a final parenting order after the respondent mother breached it, resulting in the father not seeing the children for several months.

Instead of pursuing a contempt motion, the father sought a Section 30 assessment under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules.

The court held that Rule 1(8) is the preferred, child-focused approach to a breach of a parenting order, avoiding the exacerbation of conflict inherent in contempt proceedings.

The court ordered a Section 30 assessment to determine the children's best interests and how to make the parenting schedule operative.

The applicant father sought a transfer of primary care and decision-making responsibility for the parties' two young children.

The respondent mother had engaged in a severe and prolonged campaign of parental alienation, including making multiple false allegations of physical and sexual abuse to the police and children's aid societies, and sabotaging court-ordered reunification therapy.

The court found that the mother's conduct caused significant emotional harm to the children and that she was incapable of supporting their relationship with the father.

The court transferred primary care and decision-making to the father, ordered a 90-day period of no contact for the mother (save for supervised therapeutic time), and found the mother in contempt of a previous access order.

The Executor sought full indemnity costs of $28,911.33 to be paid personally by the Objectors following a hearing with mixed results regarding the passing of accounts.

The Objectors sought full indemnity costs of $19,155.50.

The court found that the hearing had mixed results and neither party made an offer to settle.

Applying the modern approach to estate costs based on fairness and proportionality, the court ordered the Estate to pay fixed costs of $13,500 plus HST to both the Executor and the Objectors.