Michelle L. Kropp

The appellant abandoned the appeal, leaving only the respondent's claim for costs of the appeal to be determined.

The court found that the appellant's expenditures on legal advice were reasonably incurred and declined to award costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

Following the approach of the judge below, the court fixed the respondent's costs at $1,500.00 all-inclusive, representing 70 percent of legal fees on a partial indemnity basis and 100 percent of disbursements.

No order was made as to costs of the attendance on the hearing date.

The appellant father appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing his motion to change custody of a 12-year-old child.

The original custody order was made on consent to the mother in 2007.

The father argued that a psychological report ordered under the Children's Law Reform Act established a material change in circumstances affecting the child.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that while the report documented parental conflict and the mother's anger negatively impacting the child, the continuation of parental conflict does not constitute a material change in circumstances.

The court noted that the mother had taken reasonable steps to address the identified issues, including enrolling in parenting programs and increasing the father's time with the child.

The appellant challenged her father's will and an inter vivos transfer of his house to the respondent, alleging undue influence.

The trial judge rejected the claim.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the relationship between the testator and respondent gave rise to a presumption of undue influence that the respondent failed to rebut.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the rebuttable presumption of undue influence applies only to inter vivos transactions, not testamentary gifts.

In testamentary matters, the party attacking the will bears the onus of proving undue influence on a balance of probabilities.

Although the trial judge erred in conflating the two tests, this error did not affect the reasonableness of his conclusion that no undue influence occurred, as his findings were firmly rooted in the evidence.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judge's decision regarding the ownership of two Mexican condominiums purchased with funds contributed by both spouses.

The appellant claimed he held title to the properties through company shares on resulting trust for the wife in respect of half their value, seeking this arrangement because the properties had declined in value since separation, which would benefit him in the equalization calculation.

The trial judge rejected the resulting trust claim, finding the presumption had been rebutted based on all the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the respondent.

The moving party, William Watters, sought a stay of judgment pending his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Watters was a director and shareholder of a franchisee that operated a Cora restaurant and had given a personal guarantee of the franchisee's indebtedness.

The motion judge granted summary judgment against Watters on the guarantee in the amount of $117,000 and dismissed his counter-claim as statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Watters' appeal but allowed Cora's cross-appeal regarding the amount owing.

Watters then sought a stay pending leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The motion was dismissed on the grounds that Watters failed to demonstrate a serious issue of national importance, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.