Mr. Justice M.D. Faieta

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $6,037.59 following a motion for interim spousal support where success was divided.

The applicant argued the respondent's litigation conduct was unreasonable, including making uncorroborated allegations of abuse.

The court noted the respondent's lack of corroborating evidence but also found the applicant's claim for 7.5 years of retroactive spousal support on a temporary motion to be unreasonable.

Given the divided success favouring the respondent and the conduct of both parties, the court dismissed the applicant's claim for costs.

The applicant wife sought a divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty under s. 8(2)(b)(ii) of the Divorce Act.

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient particulars of the respondent's alleged cruel conduct and its impact on her mental or physical condition to meet the 'grave and weighty' standard.

The application for divorce on the grounds of cruelty was dismissed, but the matter was adjourned to allow the applicant to file a further affidavit after the one-year separation period had elapsed.

The appellant father sought a stay pending appeal of retroactive child support and costs orders, reinstatement of his suspended driver's licence, and a refraining order against further federal enforcement measures.

The court held that the appeal met the low serious-issue threshold in relation to the application of retroactive support principles and the departure from the presumptive three-year period, but the interests of justice did not favour a stay because the balance of convenience, clean hands, and delay all weighed against the moving party.

Relief under the support-enforcement scheme was also denied because the moving party had not satisfied the statutory conditions for driver's licence reinstatement or for preventing a federal licence denial application.

The court nonetheless directed that monies paid to the Director in excess of the prior unstayed costs order and any costs ordered on the motion be held pending disposition of the appeal.

Following the successful dismissal of the plaintiff's action for want of jurisdiction, the defendants sought their costs.

The plaintiff argued she should not pay costs because she had offered to discontinue the action and the defendants demanded an overly broad release.

The court awarded the Toronto Parking Authority $20,000 in partial indemnity costs.

However, the court declined to award costs to the individual defendant, finding that doing so would bring the administration of justice into disrepute given his reprehensible conduct that gave rise to the action.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering the dismissal of the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff failed to provide written submissions in response after his motion for state-funded counsel was dismissed.

The defendants submitted that the action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, as it duplicated a previously struck action regarding the prescription of Aldara and contained ridiculous allegations involving pharmaceutical weapons.

The court agreed, finding the claim lacked clarity and failed to plead a coherent cause of action, and dismissed the action.

The appellant, an involuntary psychiatric patient diagnosed with schizophrenia, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming his treating physician's finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic and ancillary medications.

The appellant argued the Board misapplied the test for capacity and improperly shifted the burden of proof.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably applied the statutory test and Supreme Court jurisprudence in concluding the appellant's mental disorder prevented him from appreciating the reasonably foreseeable consequences of refusing treatment.