M. Rodenburg

The unsuccessful appellant in an OMB appeal sought to be excused from paying costs, arguing he was acting as a public interest litigant.

The court rejected this argument, finding the litigation did not involve an issue of public significance extending beyond the immediate parties.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable, the court found the respondents' requested amounts excessive and awarded $10,000 to the primary respondent and $5,000 to each of the other two respondents.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) that dismissed his appeal concerning a proposed development.

The OMB had dismissed the appeal on the basis that the moving party failed to present apparent land use planning grounds.

The moving party argued the OMB erred in law by equating 'land use planning grounds' with 'evidence from a land use planner' and by finding he had not tendered a land use planning opinion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the OMB's assessment of the evidence was a question of mixed fact and law, not a pure question of law.

The Court also found no reason to doubt the correctness of the OMB's decision, as the evidence provided by the moving party was insufficient to demonstrate legitimate land use planning concerns.

In a supplementary endorsement addressing costs following a motion brought by a court-appointed forensic accountant seeking payment of additional fees, the court considered multiple claims for costs among parties and against the expert.

The motion seeking payment of an additional $288,000 beyond previously authorized funds had been dismissed.

The court reviewed the principles governing costs, including the limited circumstances in which costs may be awarded against non-parties under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

The court concluded that the circumstances did not justify a costs award against the court-appointed expert or the Children’s Lawyer.

Claims for costs among the parties were largely rejected, with any potential claims reserved for determination by the trial judge.

A court-appointed forensic accountant brought a motion seeking payment of a final invoice for investigative work performed in complex estate and trust litigation following the death of a family patriarch.

The expert had previously estimated that completion of the mandate would cost approximately $100,000 but later submitted a substantially larger final invoice.

The court held that the expert bore the onus of justifying the amount and found the explanation for the dramatic increase unpersuasive.

In the circumstances, the expert was required to abide by the prior representation to the court and the motion for payment of the additional amount was dismissed.

Requests for production of the expert’s working papers were found premature, and a request by other professionals for reimbursement of costs was deferred to the next case management judge.

Following a 23‑year marriage, the parties disputed the appropriate quantum of indefinite spousal support.

Entitlement was not contested, but the payor spouse argued income should be imputed to the recipient spouse because she had made insufficient efforts toward economic self‑sufficiency after separation.

The court considered the objectives of spousal support under the Divorce Act, including the promotion of self‑sufficiency, and the principles governing imputation of income.

Finding that the recipient spouse had not made reasonable efforts to obtain employment or retraining, the court imputed income at $20,000 per year.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court reduced the monthly support obligation from $2,900 to $2,000 and ordered that the obligation be secured by life insurance.