Michael George Cochrane

The appellant law firm appealed a GST/HST assessment that disallowed a claimed bad debt deduction of $37,283.11 for its April 1 to June 30, 2017 reporting period.

The Minister disallowed the deduction on three grounds: insufficient collection efforts, failure to write off the debts in the books of account, and failure to remit all net HST for the periods when the debts were rendered.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish that the debts were bad, failed to write them off in its books of account, and failed to remit the required net tax by the time the deduction was claimed.

On a family law motion between former common-law partners, the court considered a request for an advance on interim legal fees and for interim spousal support.

The moving party established a prima facie case that she qualified as a spouse under the Family Law Act and had non-compensatory entitlement to support on a needs basis, despite a live dispute about the duration of cohabitation.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the Family Law Act, and the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court ordered $20,000 as an advance for legal fees and disbursements and interim spousal support of $3,900 per month.

The request for retroactive support was deferred to trial because unresolved factual issues could significantly affect duration and quantum.

The applicant father sought shared parenting time with his four-year-old daughter after separating from the respondent mother.

The mother resisted, citing concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic and proposing a phased-in contact schedule with initial visits in the matrimonial home and a 14-day self-isolation period for the father.

The court granted the applicant's request for a shared and equal parenting plan, finding the mother's COVID-19 concerns unsubstantiated and not in the child's best interests, especially given her own conduct regarding safety protocols.

The court also waived the case conference requirement due to the urgency of establishing in-person parenting time.

The court determined the costs of two motions in a family law proceeding.

The respondent father was successful on a motion for the advancement of funds and was awarded costs of $22,967.05.

The respondent was unsuccessful on a motion to adjourn the trial, and the applicant mother was awarded costs of $7,631.38 for that motion.

The court ordered a set-off, resulting in a net payment of $15,335.67 by the applicant to the respondent.

The appellant law firm charged a "results achieved fee" in a family law matter in addition to hourly rates and daily counsel fees.

The respondent client was awarded sole custody of his child, half the proceeds of the matrimonial home, and costs.

The law firm unilaterally deducted the results achieved fee from trust funds.

The respondent objected, and the application judge found the fee constituted a prohibited contingency fee agreement under the Solicitors Act.

The law firm appealed, arguing the fee was a permissible bonus because the client remained liable for fees regardless of outcome and the fee was tied to success at trial rather than a specific monetary result.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that any part of a lawyer's compensation dependent on successful disposition of a matter constitutes a contingency fee agreement prohibited in family law matters.

The applicant retained the respondent law firm for a family law matter.

The retainer agreement included an hourly rate plus a 'results achieved fee' in the event of a positive result.

After a successful trial, the firm charged a results achieved fee of $72,433.24.

The applicant brought an application to determine if this fee contravened the Solicitors Act.

The court held that the results achieved fee was contingent on the successful disposition of the matter, making it a prohibited contingency fee agreement under s. 28.1(3) of the Solicitors Act.

The firm was ordered to refund the fee.

The parties separated and initially shared a nesting arrangement in the matrimonial home.

Following the sale of the home, both parties brought motions regarding the parenting schedule, schooling, and child support.

The mother sought primary residence and interim sole custody, while the father sought to continue an alternating week schedule.

The court excluded surreptitious surveillance evidence obtained by the mother against the father.

Finding that the father's demanding schedule as a medical resident made him largely unavailable to parent the children without delegating to his extended family, the court ordered primary residence to the mother with the father having alternate weekends and Wednesday overnights.

The court also ordered the children to attend the school proposed by the mother and ordered the father to pay table child support.

The parties, a same-sex couple, entered into a civil partnership in the United Kingdom when same-sex marriage was not permitted there.

After moving to Ontario and separating, the respondent sought a divorce and equalization under the Divorce Act and Family Law Act.

The appellant argued they were not spouses.

The motion judge declared the civil partnership a marriage under the Civil Marriage Act and the parties spouses under the Divorce Act and Family Law Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge's interpretation consistent with the modern approach to statutory interpretation and Charter values.

Following a successful motion setting aside an ex parte custody order, the applicant sought costs totalling $46,772.33.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including success, complexity, reasonableness of the parties’ conduct, proportionality, and expectations of the parties.

The court found the respondent had acted in bad faith by misleading the court in obtaining the earlier ex parte order, including failing to disclose prior custody proceedings and a pending criminal assault charge, and by mischaracterizing the applicant’s mental health and circumstances.

The court also held that costs associated with a mandatory case conference preceding the motion could properly be included in the motion’s costs.

Given the respondent’s bad faith and the applicant’s complete success, the court ordered full indemnity costs.

The applicant and respondent, a same-sex couple, entered into a civil partnership in the United Kingdom.

After relocating to Ontario and subsequently separating, the applicant sought a divorce and corollary relief.

The respondent argued they were not married.

The applicant moved for a declaration that their U.K. civil partnership constituted a marriage under Canada's Civil Marriage Act.

The court granted the motion, finding that failing to recognize the civil partnership as a marriage would violate Canadian public policy and Charter equality rights, as the U.K. prohibited same-sex marriage and only offered civil partnerships.

The court declared the civil partnership a marriage and the parties spouses under the Divorce Act and Family Law Act.

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary custody or a shared parenting arrangement of the parties' 20-month-old child.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for temporary child support.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding it in the child's best interests to remain in the primary care of the mother, who offered a more stable plan.

On the issue of child support, the court found the father, a self-employed individual, failed to provide accurate and complete financial disclosure.

The court imputed an annual income of $100,000 to the father and ordered him to pay table child support and a proportionate share of day-care expenses.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that awarded a remedy based on misrepresentation.

The appellants argued that the trial judge erred by making findings of fraudulent misrepresentation after the respondents' counsel expressly stated at the outset of trial that they were not claiming fraud.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while a remedy could not be based on fraud, the trial judge properly characterized the misrepresentations as negligent, which fully justified the remedy awarded.

The appellant, the second wife and estate trustee of the deceased, appealed a trial decision ordering the estate to pay the deceased's first wife a shortfall in life insurance proceeds.

The separation agreement between the deceased and his first wife required him to maintain a $100,000 life insurance policy for her benefit until she turned 65.

At his death, the policy only designated $43,507.15 for her.

The appellant argued the insurance was merely security for spousal support, which had declined.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the separation agreement unambiguously created an independent obligation to maintain the full $100,000 policy, and the trial judge correctly excluded extrinsic evidence of the first wife's subjective understanding.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's discretionary decision to deny him leave to continue with his motion to change child support.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting the appellant's history of chronic delays, non-compliance with multiple court orders, and failure to make complete disclosure.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The defendant appealed a Master's order permitting two of the four plaintiffs to discontinue their action.

The plaintiffs had alleged that the defendant stole $180,000 from their safety deposit box.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Master was clearly wrong and misapprehended the evidence.

Permitting the discontinuance halfway through examinations for discovery caused real prejudice to the defendant, who would lose the right to examine the discontinuing plaintiffs on their pleadings and lose two potential sources for costs recovery in an action where he was accused of theft.