Michael W. Fowler

The parties, who shared joint custody of their 10-year-old child, disagreed on whether the child should attend school in person or online during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The moving party father sought an order for in-person attendance, while the responding party mother preferred online schooling due to fears of COVID-19 exposure.

The court applied the factors from Zinati v. Spence, noting the child had no underlying health risks and the statistical risk of severe illness from COVID-19 for children was extremely low.

The court granted the father's motion, ordering the child to attend in-person schooling, with no order as to costs.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action after a 2.5-day trial, the successful defendants sought costs.

The court found no conduct warranting substantial indemnity costs and no relevant offers to settle.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable in line with the losing party's expectations, the court noted the plaintiff's own costs outline was over $44,000.

The court fixed the defendants' costs at $30,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff brought an action against the estate of his deceased former common-law partner, seeking a declaration that he was the beneficial owner of two cottage properties registered in her name.

The parties had executed a cohabitation agreement in 1993 that established a separate property regime.

In 2010, the plaintiff directed that the properties be transferred into the deceased's name.

He alleged that she held them in trust for him, but no written declaration of trust was ever signed.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a trust on a balance of probabilities, noting conflicts in the evidence and the application of the Statute of Frauds.

The action was dismissed.