M. P. Eberhard

Following guardianship proceedings concerning an adult alleged to be incapable of managing property, the court addressed competing claims for legal costs payable from the incapable person's estate.

Multiple parties, including family members, a private trust company, counsel for the incapable person, and the Public Guardian and Trustee, sought full indemnity costs.

The court considered whether the litigation was necessary to protect the incapable person's interests and whether each participant's involvement justified reimbursement from the estate.

While family members and required institutional participants were awarded their claimed costs, the private trust company's recovery was reduced due to limited evidence of its contribution and excessive hourly rates.

Multiple motions arose from a long-running property drainage dispute following earlier orders requiring implementation of a drainage design.

The defendant initially brought a motion to set aside or vary prior orders but abandoned it at the hearing, while the plaintiffs sought dismissal of that motion, payment out of funds held in court to implement engineering work, and restrictions on further motions by the defendant.

The court confirmed that its role was limited to implementing the previously ordered design or a variation agreed upon by the parties and ordered that the drainage work proceed under the agreed Pearson design.

Funds already paid into court were ordered paid out to the plaintiffs for construction costs, and the defendant was directed to pay an additional amount into court subject to documentation of implementation expenses.

The court also required the defendant to obtain leave before bringing any further motions.

The applicant sought leave to add the respondent's wife as a party, to question her, and to amend her application to include a constructive trust claim.

The applicant and respondent had a long personal relationship and children together, while the respondent maintained a double life, remaining married to his wife.

The court dismissed the motion to add the wife as a party, finding no direct link between the applicant's contributions and the wife's property, and noting it would unnecessarily complicate the litigation.

The motion to amend the claim was also dismissed, as the proposed constructive trust claim appeared to be statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, though the applicant was permitted to explore tracing of funds during the respondent's questioning.

Following cross-motions in a family law proceeding concerning child support, disclosure, post-secondary education expenses, and security for support through a lien, the court addressed costs and outstanding disclosure issues.

The applicant mother was successful on all substantive issues, including resisting the respondent father's motion and obtaining remedies relating to support and disclosure.

Applying the governing costs principles emphasizing indemnification of successful litigants, encouragement of settlement, and sanctioning of improper conduct, the court found the respondent father’s conduct contributed to delay and diversion of the litigation.

The court fixed, rather than assessed, costs and ordered the respondent father to pay $16,000 to the applicant mother.

The court also provided directions regarding further disclosure, emphasizing the respondent father’s obligation to disclose business records relevant to determining income from self-employment.

Following a family law motion concerning increased child and spousal support and disclosure, the court determined costs after written submissions.

The moving party had abandoned part of the motion after receiving late disclosure but remained partially successful given the necessity of the proceeding amid ongoing financial disarray between the parties.

The court considered earlier procedural steps and the parties’ conduct, noting that cooperation on some issues reduced litigation costs while delayed disclosure impeded settlement and adjudication.

Applying the general principles governing costs, the court found the moving party to be the successful litigant.

Costs were fixed in favour of the moving party in the amount claimed.

Following a long-running dispute concerning compliance with a prior court order, the matter returned to the court after cross-motions and prior contempt proceedings.

The plaintiffs sought enforcement of an earlier judgment while the defendants attempted to negotiate a compromise regarding implementation.

Although the court facilitated judicial ADR in hopes the parties’ engineers could reach a practical solution, no agreement was reached until the defendants ultimately accepted the plaintiffs’ engineer’s proposal.

The court held that the plaintiffs’ preparation to enforce the prior order was necessary in the circumstances.

Partial indemnity costs of $4,800 were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The accused sought to exclude evidence obtained from a warrantless search of a vehicle and a subsequent residential search warrant, alleging violations of s. 8 of the Charter.

The court found that police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for possession for the purpose of trafficking based on surveillance, corroborated confidential informant information, and observed conduct consistent with drug transactions.

The vehicle search was held to be lawful as a search incident to arrest under common law principles.

The accused’s Garafoli challenge to the residential search warrant failed, as the Information to Obtain contained sufficient indicia of informant reliability and a nexus between the accused, suspected trafficking activity, and the residence.

The court dismissed the Charter application and admitted the impugned evidence.

Following the release of reasons after a family law trial, counsel for the applicant and the self‑represented respondent sought clarification of several aspects of the judgment through correspondence.

The court clarified issues relating to the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, the production of automobile insurance information, the division of a pension at source, and the quantum and period of retroactive spousal support.

The court confirmed that a typographical error in the original reasons incorrectly referenced March 2012, clarifying that retroactive spousal support related to the period from March 2010 to August 31, 2012 with a lump‑sum shortfall payment ordered.

The court declined to address several issues raised by the respondent as they involved enforcement matters or issues not raised at trial.

The parties, who were still residing under one roof, sought resolution of their family law dispute following an arranged marriage in Syria.

The court determined the date of separation to be the date of service of legal process.

Due to the high conflict and lack of independent parenting plans, the court deferred final custody and access decisions, instead ordering the immediate listing of the matrimonial home for sale and setting a temporary parenting schedule.

The court calculated net family property, resulting in a nominal equalization payment from the applicant to the respondent, and ordered ongoing child and spousal support based on the respondent's employment income and income imputed to the applicant, along with $10,000 in retroactive spousal support.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a temporary child support order, seeking a reduction based on an asserted income of $40,000 and claiming significant overpayment.

The applicant mother opposed the change, alleged material non-disclosure, and sought various ancillary relief including access to RESP funds and security for support.

The court found the father had provided selective and inadequate financial disclosure and rejected his claim that the original order was excessive.

While recognizing some temporary financial and medical setbacks following a motor vehicle accident, the court held that the father’s lifestyle evidence and business records undermined his claimed income.

The court varied support only for a limited six‑month period and otherwise maintained the previously ordered temporary support level.

Following dismissal of the plaintiffs’ motions, the defendant municipality sought an award of costs.

The court had previously directed written submissions and a bill of costs.

The plaintiffs filed no responding submissions.

The court accepted the defendant’s partial indemnity calculation as standard and unchallenged and exercised its discretion to fix costs rather than assess them.

Costs were fixed in favour of the defendant municipality.

Following a family law trial addressing net family property issues, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The court noted that the trial reasons largely supported the mother’s position regarding the elements of net family property and raised credibility and disclosure concerns about the husband’s evidence.

Although the applicant’s bill of costs was not unreasonable, the court found that responsibility for the need for trial was not entirely one-sided.

Balancing these considerations, the court exercised its discretion to fix costs in favour of the applicant.

Costs were fixed at $60,000 all-inclusive.

The municipal defendant sought leave to appeal a motion judge’s refusal to grant summary judgment dismissing a negligence claim as statute‑barred under s. 44(8)(b) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The underlying action arose from a motor vehicle collision in which the plaintiff’s vehicle struck a pole located on a median.

The moving party argued the undisputed facts permitted determination of the statutory bar on summary judgment.

The court held there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge’s decision and that the proposed appeal raised issues of importance concerning interpretation of the statutory immunity provision and the proper use of summary judgment.

Leave to appeal was granted.

The respondent spouse brought a motion seeking a reduction in spousal support following a layoff and transition to commission-based employment.

The applicant spouse opposed the reduction and argued that the respondent’s historical earnings and earning capacity justified a higher imputed income.

The court held that, on an interim motion without credibility findings, caution should be exercised before imputing income where there has been a clear reduction in actual earnings.

The court fashioned a temporary stepped support structure to balance the parties’ financial hardship while allowing time for the respondent to re-establish income.

Reporting obligations regarding loan repayment and income were also imposed.

The applicant mother brought a motion for increased child support, spousal support, and disclosure.

After receiving late financial disclosure shortly before the hearing, the disclosure issue was abandoned, but the timing and adequacy of financial information complicated income determination.

The court found the respondent father underemployed and unable to provide reliable financial analysis from his construction business records.

On an interim basis, the court imputed income of approximately $80,000 and ordered increased interim spousal and child support, including additional support for the applicant’s medical expenses.

The decision emphasized the inadequacy of the financial record and the necessity of temporary orders pending fuller analysis.

Following convictions for multiple violent offences including assault with a weapon, threats, forcible confinement, and assaults on police, the Crown applied to have the offender declared a Dangerous Offender under s. 753 of the Criminal Code.

Expert psychiatric evidence established a high risk of violent recidivism, particularly in intimate partner relationships, and demonstrated a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour.

Although the statutory criteria for a Dangerous Offender designation were met, the court accepted expert evidence that intensive institutional treatment followed by community supervision could reasonably manage the offender’s risk.

The court therefore imposed a determinate penitentiary sentence followed by a long-term supervision order rather than an indeterminate sentence.

Parole eligibility was delayed to ensure sufficient institutional programming before release.

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.

The Crown sought to admit a statement made by the accused during a police interview.

The defence argued the statement was involuntary due to oppressive circumstances and that the police ignored the accused's assertions of his right to remain silent.

The court reviewed the interview and found no objective evidence of oppression, threats, or inducements.

Although the accused asserted his right to silence multiple times, the police officer continued to speak, using legitimate persuasion without denying the accused's right to choose or depriving him of an operating mind.

The court concluded the statement was voluntary and admissible.

Following contempt proceedings arising from failure to comply with a prior court order in a neighbour nuisance dispute, the court addressed costs related to an April 2012 hearing concerning sanctions for contempt.

The moving parties sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $15,000.

The court agreed that substantial indemnity was appropriate given the contempt finding and the litigation conduct of the contemnor.

However, exercising moderation due to the ongoing neighbour dispute and the court fixing rather than assessing costs, the court reduced the claimed amount slightly.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 all-inclusive.

During a criminal jury trial involving sexual offences, the defence sought to introduce several Facebook pages attributed to the complainant to support a theory regarding the complainant’s motivations and behaviour.

The court considered whether the pages were admissible in light of evidentiary rules and the restrictions imposed by s. 276 of the Criminal Code governing evidence of a complainant’s sexual activity.

The judge found that portions of the Facebook content were sexually suggestive and that admitting them would offend s. 276, while other portions lacked probative value or risked significant prejudice and diversion of the trial.

The court also raised concerns about authenticity, context, and the complexity of interpreting social media content.

The Facebook pages were ruled inadmissible.