M.P. Eberhard

Following an oral judgment ordering the resumption of contact between a parent and child, the court directed counsel to provide submissions or a consent agreement regarding the practical facilitation and early schedule for the contact.

The court scheduled a follow-up hearing in the event the parties could not agree.

The applicant step-father sought costs following a successful motion to resume contact with the child.

He sought full recovery costs of $26,570.27 based on an offer to settle.

The respondent mother argued for reduced costs due to partial success, financial hardship, and trauma-based motivations.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful on the core issue of resuming contact and that his costs were proportional.

The court fixed costs at $20,000, to be paid at a rate of $200 per month set off against the applicant's ongoing child support obligations.

The applicant step-father brought a motion seeking contact and parenting time with his 5-year-old step-child after the respondent mother unilaterally terminated contact for nine months.

The mother argued that as a non-parent, the applicant had no presumptive right to access and that resumed contact would negatively affect her mental health.

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated a settled intention to treat the child as his own and had been authentically involved in parenting.

The court ordered the resumption of contact, emphasizing that a biological parent cannot arbitrarily deprive a child of a committed step-parent relationship.

The applicant husband's pleadings were struck for failure to provide financial disclosure.

The respondent wife proceeded by way of an uncontested trial, seeking child support, spousal support, and an equalization payment.

The court imputed an annual income of $800,000 to the applicant based on his history of high earnings, hidden assets, and intentional underemployment.

The court ordered the applicant to pay $1,961,318 in support arrears, ongoing child and spousal support, and a $6,000,000 equalization payment.

Full recovery costs of $460,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant father brought a motion to change the parenting schedule for their 10-year-old child from a week-about arrangement to primary residence with the father.

The child had consistently expressed a desire to live with the father, amidst ongoing high conflict between the parents and concerns regarding the mother's physical discipline.

The court considered the views and preferences of the child, the evidence from the Office of the Children's Lawyer, and the history of conflict.

The court granted the motion, ordering primary residence with the father and alternate weekend parenting time for the mother, along with mandatory counselling for the child and parents.

Following a five-day trial regarding child mobility, the successful respondent mother sought full indemnity costs of $36,691.05.

The applicant father argued against a costs order due to his impecuniosity and its potential impact on his ability to pay child support and fund access.

The court found the father's litigation position unreasonable and noted the mother beat her offers to settle.

The court generally accepted that full indemnity costs were justified but moderated the quantum to $30,000 payable to Legal Aid Ontario in recognition of the father's current financial circumstances.

The applicants sought costs following the resolution of a dispute regarding the sale of a property.

The court found that the respondent's position and conduct during negotiations and litigation were unreasonable, as she failed to provide evidence or comply with procedural requirements.

The applicants were awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,278.16, to be paid from the respondent's share of the proceeds of the sale of the subject property.

The plaintiff discovered significant structural defects and Building Code violations in his cottage years after purchasing it, rendering it unsafe to occupy.

He claimed coverage under his title insurance policy with the defendant.

The court, applying the Court of Appeal's framework in MacDonald v. Chicago Title, found that the structural defects flowed directly from the inadequacy of the building permit and inspection process, rendering the title unmarketable.

The court held that the loss fell within the covered title risks and was not caught by the policy's exclusions for governmental power or actual knowledge.

Partial judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff on the issue of coverage, with damages bifurcated to a subsequent trial.

The plaintiffs brought actions for breach of contract and breach of trust after the defendant general contractor abandoned a construction project.

The defendants were noted in default.

The court found the corporate defendant liable for breach of contract and breach of trust for failing to pay subcontractors.

The sole director of the corporate defendant was found personally liable for the breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act.

The court awarded compensatory damages but declined to award punitive damages or substantial indemnity costs.

The applicant sought termination of a guardianship order over his spouse’s property following recovery from a medical condition that had temporarily impaired her capacity.

The court considered contemporaneous medical evidence from two treating physicians indicating the subject had regained the ability to understand and manage her property and financial affairs.

All family members supported termination of the guardianship, and the applicant accepted transactions that were contrary to his own financial interest, supporting the authenticity of the subject’s expressed wishes.

Although the Public Guardian and Trustee raised concerns about fluctuating health and independent representation, the court found sufficient safeguards in the record to proceed.

The guardianship order was terminated effective the date the subject regained capacity.

The possessory claimant brought a motion to stay a new trial or, in the alternative, for security for costs, following a successful appeal that ordered a re-trial due to apprehension of judicial bias.

The objector brought a cross-motion for security for costs.

The court noted that both parties had achieved parallel success in previous proceedings and faced similar risks of losing their properties to pay litigation costs.

Finding that a stay would deny access to justice and that neither party should be given an advantage under the rules, the court dismissed both the motion and the cross-motion.

The parties separated after a 30-year marriage during which they operated a horse training business and farm.

The court determined the equalization of net family property, finding that the respondent could not saddle the applicant with business debts that were part of a joint enterprise with their son.

The applicant was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $31,455.03.

The court also imputed income to the respondent and ordered him to pay a lump sum spousal support of $80,000 to the applicant, resulting in a net payment to the applicant of $48,544.97.