M. Christine Roth

The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant disaster clean-up contractor more than four years after discovering the alleged negligence, well past the limitation period.

After the defendant served a summary judgment motion based on the expired limitation period, the plaintiff agreed to discontinue the action.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The defendant sought $30,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the plaintiff argued for $12,000, asserting the defendant took unnecessary steps after being notified of the intent to discontinue.

The court awarded the defendant $18,000 in costs, finding that while the defendant was entitled to costs for its thorough preparation, it was not entitled to costs for steps unnecessarily taken after the plaintiff advised of its intention to discontinue.

A family law application concerning custody, access, and child support for a five-year-old child whose mother is subject to a deportation order to Jamaica.

The applicant father initially sought sole custody and a non-removal order but modified his position during trial.

The respondent mother sought sole custody with reasonable access for the father.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, reasonable and generous access to the father whether in Canada or Jamaica, child support of $400 per month, and dispensed with the father's consent for travel documentation and international travel with the child.

The court terminated the temporary non-removal order, finding no genuine dispute between the parties on this issue.

The moving defendants sought security for costs against two corporate plaintiffs in a commercial dispute concerning the ownership of intellectual property and assets purchased from a bankrupt entity.

One plaintiff corporation was a non‑resident company with assets outside Ontario but had refused to disclose details of assets within the jurisdiction, while the other corporation appeared to have no assets and had never conducted business.

Applying Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that the defendants met the initial burden for security for costs and that the plaintiffs failed to establish an exception that would make such an order unjust.

Considering the uncertainty of success at trial and the risk of unenforceable costs, the court ordered staged security payments tied to pre‑trial and trial phases.

The principal plaintiff was required to post security totaling amounts for discovery, trial preparation, and trial attendance, failing which its action would be stayed.