Michael Freeman

The applicant father brought a motion to vary an interim order to remove the requirement that he facilitate daily Facetime calls between the respondent mother and the child during his extended holiday parenting time.

The mother opposed the motion and sought additional relief, including make-up parenting time.

The court found that while the mother's previous contempt constituted a material change in circumstances, the father failed to demonstrate that eliminating the calls was in the child's best interests.

Both the father's motion and the mother's requests for additional relief were dismissed.

Following a guardianship trial where success was divided, the applicants sought full indemnity costs of the proceeding and costs of three interlocutory motions.

The court found that while the applicants were more successful than the respondents, their insistence on unworkable care plans and the parties' mutual animosity unduly lengthened the proceeding.

The court denied enhanced costs and costs of the interlocutory motions, awarding the applicants partial indemnity costs fixed at $56,760.72.

Following a lengthy family law trial involving a motion to vary a historic support and equalization order and related enforcement issues, the court determined the appropriate costs disposition.

Although the applicant was largely successful in resisting the variation motion, the court found both principal litigants behaved unreasonably throughout the proceedings, including failing to make proper settlement offers, prolonging litigation, and failing to provide adequate financial disclosure.

As a result, neither party received costs against the other.

A co‑respondent who successfully obtained an order removing historic court orders from title to her residence was awarded partial indemnity costs despite failing to meet the technical requirements for full recovery under the Family Law Rules settlement offer provisions.

The court exercised discretion under Rule 24 to award $40,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following a successful application declaring the applicant remained president and a member of a union organization, the court addressed costs.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs relying on an informal settlement offer and alleged improper conduct by the respondents in attempting to remove him from office.

The court held that the circumstances required for substantial indemnity costs were not present, including the absence of a valid Rule 49 offer or litigation misconduct.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01 and s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court reduced the applicant’s requested costs due to litigation conduct, including late retention of counsel and a shift in litigation position.