Mr. Justice D.C. Shaw

The plaintiff purchased a home from the defendants.

Prior to the sale, the defendants completed a Seller Property Information Statement (SPIS) indicating there were no water or moisture problems, no flooding, and no roof leakage.

In reality, the property had a high water table requiring constant sump pump maintenance, a history of basement flooding, a failing septic system, and a leaking skylight.

The plaintiff sued for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation.

The court found the defendants liable for negligent misrepresentation, as the statements in the SPIS were untrue and the plaintiff reasonably relied on them.

The court awarded damages for remedial work and inconvenience.

The defendants brought a third-party claim against their real estate agent, who had advised them that "fixed" problems did not need to be disclosed.

The court found the agent negligent and ordered the third parties to indemnify the defendants for the damages related to the sump pump issues.

The parties proceeded to trial on the issues of child and spousal support following an eight-year cohabitation.

The applicant father is the sole shareholder of a successful engineering company, while the respondent mother is employed at a modest income and has re-partnered.

The court imputed $90,000 of the corporation's pre-tax income to the father under s. 18 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, setting his income at $201,537.

Child support was determined based on a shared custody set-off, with a deduction for the biological father's actual support payments.

The mother was awarded compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support of $2,250 per month for a fixed duration of six years, with a retroactive award adjusted for notional tax consequences.

Decision on costs following dismissal of a motion for sale of a matrimonial home brought under the Partition Act.

The successful respondent was self‑represented and sought compensation for 47 hours of preparation and attendance at an hourly rate.

Applying the principles from Fong v. Chan and Mustang Investigations v. Ironside, the court held that a self‑represented litigant may recover costs only if they demonstrate that lawyer‑like work caused an opportunity cost through foregone remunerative activity.

Because the respondent only established that she used one vacation day from employment to prepare for the motion, the court awarded a modest allowance reflecting that opportunity cost together with reasonable disbursements.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking production of a defence medical examination report and later sought costs after the report was produced following service of the motion.

The defendants argued the motion was unnecessary and that no order for a medical examination had been made under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act, rendering rule 33.06(2) inapplicable.

The court held that disclosure obligations could still arise under the broader document production rules and found the defendant failed to produce the report promptly after receiving it.

Although the motion was resolved prior to argument, it was reasonable for the moving party to have brought it.

Partial indemnity costs of $1,000 were awarded, reflecting both the defendant’s delay and the plaintiff’s own failure to comply with an earlier order to set the action down for trial.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking unsupervised access to his child, or alternatively supervised access, along with an order appointing a psychologist to conduct an assessment.

The respondent mother sought limited supervised access and requested that the Office of the Children’s Lawyer represent the child.

The court found that the child had minimal prior contact with the father and had not seen him for over a year.

Balancing the child’s need for stability and the potential to gradually develop a relationship with the father, the court ordered biweekly supervised access through a supervised access program for six months and requested involvement of the Children’s Lawyer.

The request for a psychological assessment was dismissed without prejudice, and custody was granted to the mother on consent.

The moving party sought to rescind child support arrears and terminate ongoing support after spending five years incarcerated with no income.

The court considered the variation provisions of s. 17 of the Divorce Act and the Child Support Guidelines, including the principles governing rescission of arrears and imputing income.

It held that the payor had no present or past capacity to pay during incarceration and that imputing income during that period would be irrational.

The court also found that a possible future residential school settlement did not constitute future capacity to pay arrears that accrued when the payor had no income.

The arrears were rescinded and ongoing support was varied to zero, subject to future variation if circumstances change.

The applicant brought a motion under the Partition Act seeking an interlocutory order for the sale of the matrimonial home prior to trial.

The respondent opposed the motion, asserting a claim for exclusive possession under the Family Law Act and arguing that a sale would prejudice her substantive property rights and disrupt the children's living arrangements.

The court considered the interaction between the Partition Act and the Family Law Act, noting that a sale should not proceed where it would prejudice a spouse’s rights under the family law regime.

Finding that the respondent had at least an arguable case for exclusive possession and that the children’s best interests and housing stability were significant considerations, the court concluded that there was a genuine issue for trial.

The court therefore declined to order the sale of the matrimonial home before trial.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support following the parties’ separation after a 34‑year marriage.

The parties were equal shareholders in a corporation through which the respondent earned income, but the corporation’s financial situation and the respondent’s current income were unclear due to incomplete financial disclosure and outstanding tax liabilities.

The applicant sought support based on an imputed income of $150,000 using the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court held that there was insufficient evidence to determine an appropriate interim support order pending trial and declined to impute the proposed income.

Instead, the court ordered a temporary “interim, interim” spousal support payment for four months pending production of corporate financial statements and further questioning.

Following a successful motion for partial summary judgment dismissing an insurance claim for contents loss arising from a hotel fire, the insurer sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $25,000.

The plaintiff challenged the reasonableness of the claimed hours, the use of two counsel, and the hourly rates applied.

The court reviewed the governing principles under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and relevant appellate authority emphasizing reasonableness, proportionality, and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.

Although the insurer succeeded on the underlying motion, the court found the time docketed and partial indemnity rates somewhat excessive and reduced the requested amount.

Costs of $17,500 plus HST were awarded as fair and reasonable for the summary judgment motion.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support following separation.

The primary dispute concerned the income to be imputed to the respondent, who controlled a jointly owned Tim Horton's franchise.

The respondent argued income should be set at $120,000 based on a projected available cash analysis, while the applicant relied on the respondent’s sworn financial statement showing income of approximately $169,000.

The court found the projection unreliable due to unsupported assumptions and incomplete financial disclosure, including the absence of updated financial statements and corporate records.

Income of $169,000 was imputed to the respondent, resulting in guideline child support for three children and spousal support within the advisory range.

The applicant brought an interim motion seeking primary care and control of the parties’ young child, child support based on the respondent’s alleged income of $65,000, reimbursement of daycare expenses, and continuation of extended health coverage.

The parties had been exercising an equal week‑on/week‑off shared parenting arrangement between two communities since separation.

The court held that where a consensual shared parenting arrangement had been functioning for approximately 18 months and both parents were acknowledged to be capable, a compelling reason was required to alter the arrangement on an interim basis.

Finding conflicting evidence and no pressing need for change, the court maintained the existing shared parenting arrangement pending trial.

The court also determined interim child support based on the respondent’s lower current income and ordered proportionate sharing of daycare costs.

Following dismissal of a summary judgment motion brought by the defendant, the court determined the appropriate costs award for the successful plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs relying on an offer to settle and the complexity of issues involving trust funds under the Construction Lien Act and limitation periods.

The court held the offer did not meet the criteria of Rule 49.10 and found no unreasonable conduct justifying substantial indemnity costs.

Emphasizing proportionality, reasonableness, and the amount in dispute, the court reduced the requested amount.

Costs were awarded to the successful plaintiff in the sum of $10,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.