Narissa Somji

The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' two children attend their choice of schools in Ottawa, within the catchment area of the matrimonial home.

The applicant mother opposed, requesting the children attend school in Gatineau, Quebec, where she had relocated, citing financial strain and travel costs.

Applying the best interests of the child framework, the court found that history of care, stability, and the children's expressed preferences strongly favoured remaining in their current Ottawa school catchment area.

The father's motion was granted.

The Applicant, Adele Cummings, sought leave to bring a motion to access $140,000 from her anticipated equalization payment to finance her upcoming trial.

The Respondent, Stephen Horwitz, opposed, arguing that leave should only be granted in exceptional circumstances after a settlement conference.

The court granted leave, finding that the Applicant's request constituted an exceptional circumstance due to her limited earning capacity, significant litigation costs, and the impact of the trial on her future financial security, emphasizing the importance of access to justice.

The applicant father sought increased parenting time with his two children after their return to Ottawa from a four-year posting in Miami with the respondent mother.

The mother opposed a 50/50 shared parenting arrangement, citing the children's reluctance due to the father's home distance from school and unfamiliarity with a school routine there.

The court, applying the best interests of the child factors under the Divorce Act, found it was in the children's best interests to have increased parenting time with the father.

A temporary order was made for the father's parenting time to be from Wednesday after school to Sunday evening every alternate week, with a view towards a future shared parenting schedule.

The father was deemed the successful party and presumptively entitled to costs.

The respondent mother sought an order for the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) to prepare a s. 112 report or, alternatively, a private parenting plan assessment for the parties' nine-year-old child.

The applicant father opposed, arguing the report was unnecessary.

The court found sufficient grounds to order a s. 112 report, citing the child's struggles in school, a new medical diagnosis (retinoschisis), challenges with sleeping alone, and expressed anxieties about the father's home.

The court emphasized the importance of obtaining the child's views and preferences.

The motion was granted, and the mother was awarded partial indemnity costs of $1,700.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of Christine Decaire on a mischief charge related to the Freedom Convoy.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred in applying principal and party liability and inferential reasoning from circumstantial evidence.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent engaged in overt acts of mischief or formed a common intention to block streets, distinguishing her conduct from other protest-related cases.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final parenting order, seeking increased unsupervised parenting time based on alleged changes to his bail conditions.

The applicant mother opposed, arguing no material change in circumstances and that a variation was not in the children's best interests.

The mother also sought a declaration that the father was a vexatious litigant and an order precluding further motions without leave.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding he failed to establish a material change in circumstances and that a variation was not in the children's best interests.

The court declared the father a vexatious litigant due to his persistent and unreasonable conduct, including failure to comply with orders and provide disclosure, and ordered him to obtain leave for any future proceedings.

Full recovery costs were awarded to the mother due to the father's bad faith conduct.

The respondent Yelka Kacin sought $10,000 in costs after successfully moving for directions and appointment of an estate trustee.

The applicant Martina Kacin agreed to costs but argued the quantum was excessive.

The court, applying Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, found the respondent's counsel's billings largely reasonable, reducing "argument" hours from 12 to 6.

The court awarded fixed costs of $9,200, with $5,000 payable by the applicant within 30 days and the remaining $4,200 to be deducted from the applicant's share of the estate.

The Applicant, Karen Clark, sought full-recovery costs after successfully obtaining a valuation of the Respondent's business.

The Respondent, Corey Clark, argued for reduced costs due to alleged unreasonable conduct by the Applicant's prior counsel and unreasonable offers to settle.

The court found the Applicant was presumptively entitled to costs, her offers to settle were reasonable and more favorable than the outcome, and the Respondent's delayed disclosure of expert reports constituted unreasonable conduct, though not bad faith.

The court awarded the Applicant elevated fixed costs of $110,000, considering the complexity of the valuation, the parties' conduct, and the offers to settle.

Following their successful defence against a motion to add them as third parties, the Proposed Defendants sought partial indemnity costs.

The moving party, Security National, argued the Proposed Defendants were merely intervenors and not entitled to costs.

The court found that the Proposed Defendants had standing and, even if considered intervenors, met the exception to the general rule against awarding costs to intervenors due to their significant interests and necessary participation.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $5,328 to People on Bikes and Gord Townley, and $2,667 to His Majesty the King.

The Respondent, Adan McIntosh, brought a motion with 21 issues, despite a prior court order requiring him to seek leave for any future motions due to a history of incessant litigation.

The court dismissed the motion, declining leave, on the grounds that many issues had already been adjudicated, the motion violated a standing order prohibiting further motions pending a "motion to change" decision (which had since been rendered), and the supporting affidavit was insufficient to delineate facts for the numerous issues.

The court reiterated the requirement for strict compliance with the leave order.

The plaintiff developer brought a motion for default judgment against the self-represented defendant for failing to close on an agreement of purchase and sale for a new home.

The defendant, a refugee facing a removal order, failed to file a defence or any evidence regarding his financial circumstances despite being granted an adjournment to do so.

The court found the plaintiff took reasonable steps to mitigate its damages by reselling the property at a lower price.

Default judgment was granted, and the defendant was ordered to pay damages representing the difference in sale price, real estate commissions, and legal fees, plus partial indemnity costs.

The applicant, the great aunt of a 14-year-old child (S.K.), sought a final order for primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility for S.K. The respondent parents failed to file an Answer and did not attend the proceedings, leading to an uncontested trial.

The court found the conditions for an uncontested trial were met and, considering the child's best interests, granted the applicant's requests for primary residence and sole decision-making authority.

The court also ordered virtual parenting time for the mother at the child's discretion and in-person parenting time for both parents at the applicant's discretion, in consultation with the child, to ensure safety.

Nominal costs of $1000 were awarded against the respondent parents.

The applicant father brought a summary judgment motion seeking sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, supervised parenting time for the mother, and retroactive and ongoing child support for their 15-year-old child.

The respondent mother, who struggled with addiction and mental health issues, failed to file responding materials or attend the hearing, and had a history of non-compliance and delays.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, granted the father sole decision-making and primary residence, ordered supervised and virtual parenting time for the mother at the father's discretion, and awarded retroactive and ongoing child support, plus an elevated costs award due to the mother's conduct.

The plaintiff, a former federal public service pilot, brought an action against his former employer, Transport Canada, his supervisor, and Sun Life for denial of long-term disability benefits and alleged misrepresentations by the employer to the insurer.

The Attorney General of Canada moved to dismiss the action against the employer defendants, arguing the court's jurisdiction was ousted by s. 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act.

The court found that the essential character of the dispute related to the employer's conduct and misrepresentations, which were grievable under s. 208 of the Act.

The court stayed the action against the employer defendants, concluding it lacked jurisdiction.

The respondent father sought full-recovery costs of $24,767 after successfully obtaining an urgent parenting order to reinstate the parties' child in school and modify the parenting schedule.

The applicant mother did not reply to the costs submission.

The court found the father presumptively entitled to costs.

While the mother's conduct was unreasonable (poor preparation, voluminous irrelevant materials, repeated delays), it did not meet the high threshold for bad faith to warrant full-recovery costs.

Considering the importance and complexity of the motion, the father's counsel's reasonable billings (61 hours, $21,918 + HST), and the mother's failure to demonstrate inability to pay, the court awarded elevated costs of $17,000 to the father.

The Applicants sought full recovery costs ($27,557) after successfully obtaining a prescriptive easement in a prior application.

The Respondents agreed to costs but argued for partial indemnity.

The court, exercising its discretion under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found no basis for elevated costs, as there was no offer to settle under Rule 49.10 nor any sanction-worthy conduct by the Respondents.

Despite the importance and moderate complexity of the case, the court determined that all-inclusive partial indemnity costs in the fixed amount of $14,300 were fair and reasonable, dismissing the Applicants' request for full recovery.

The applicant mother sought costs thrown away after a settlement conference was unproductive due to the respondent father's lack of preparedness and misleading conduct.

The court found the father's behavior unreasonable, noting his failure to provide financial disclosure, ill-preparedness on parenting issues, and misleading statements about his knowledge of the conference date.

Considering the complexity of the family law issues, the reasonableness of the applicant's legal fees, and the respondent's ability to pay, the court awarded the applicant $4,500 in elevated costs.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action, commenced in 2015, on grounds of inordinate and inexcusable delay pursuant to Rule 24.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff opposed, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and insufficient funds as reasons for the nine-year delay.

The court found the delay to be inordinate and inexcusable, resulting in substantial prejudice to the defendant's ability to secure witnesses and recollect events, and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff's explanations for the delay were deemed insufficient.

The applicant sought an order under the Business Corporations Act to rectify corporate records, declaring she was never a director of the respondent corporation due to lack of consent, and to remove her name from the list of directors.

She also sought an order for the corporation to appoint new directors or be wound up.

The court found that the applicant had not consented to being a director and granted the declaration and rectification order.

However, the court declined to order the appointment of new directors or the winding up of the corporation, finding it unnecessary given the primary relief, that statutory grounds for winding up were not met, and that proper notice for that specific relief was not given.

This motion sought directions to advance an estate matter concerning a lost will.

The applicant, a daughter of the deceased, sought to probate a copy of a 2011 will naming her as sole beneficiary.

The respondents, the deceased's other two children, opposed, relying on the presumption that the lost original will was destroyed with intent to revoke.

The court was asked to determine the issues for a merits hearing, whether an Estate Trustee should be appointed, and the process for document production.

The court found that the key issues for the merits hearing were tracing possession of the will and rebutting the presumption of destruction.

It ordered the appointment of an independent Estate Trustee during litigation and mediator, citing family conflict and the need for neutral management of the estate and productions.

The court also established a specific, managed process for document production, declining the applicant's request for broad, blanket orders.