Nolan D.A. Wilson

A mother and her adult son with his spouse disputed the distribution of proceeds from the sale of a jointly-owned home.

The mother had contributed substantially to the down payment and closing costs from the proceeds of her own home sale, while the son and his wife contributed to ongoing household expenses.

The parties had not documented their arrangement or discussed what would occur if the living arrangement failed.

The court applied the doctrine of purchase money resulting trust and found that the son and daughter-in-law failed to rebut the presumption by establishing that the down payment was intended as a gift.

The court awarded the mother her initial contribution plus a proportional share of the remaining proceeds.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a two-day family law trial concerning parenting time.

The respondent sought to extend midweek overnight parenting time but was unsuccessful.

The court considered the parties' conduct, offers to settle, and the proportionality of costs.

The applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs of $4,500, reflecting her success on the primary issue and the reasonableness of the parties' positions.

The decision highlights the application of Family Law Rules subrules 24(12), 24(13), and 24(14) in assessing costs, emphasizing the importance of offers to settle and the conduct of parties in family litigation.

This decision addresses a motion to change parenting time and decision-making arrangements for the child Lailah, born in 2014, between parents Frankie May Dey and Ryan David Cronk.

The court found a material change in circumstances since the original 2014 order, including Mr. Cronk's stabilization and ongoing parental conflict.

The parties resolved most issues by consent, but the court considered whether to add Thursday overnight parenting time during school days.

The court declined to add Thursday overnights due to the child's best interests, the parents' poor communication, and the child's clear preference to maintain primary residence with the mother and limit school week transitions.

The court imposed additional orders to reduce conflict exposure and facilitate private communication between the child and each parent.

This endorsement addresses costs following a child protection trial where the primary dispute was between paternal (A.H. and B.H.) and maternal (D.T. and A.T.) grandparents for custody of a child, M. The paternal grandparents, who were ultimately granted deemed custody, sought costs against the maternal grandparents.

The court found that while the maternal grandparents had a legitimate case, their conduct, including obstructing access and breaching court orders, was unreasonable and unduly prolonged the proceedings.

Applying principles that allow for costs against parents/parties in child protection cases for unreasonable conduct, the court awarded $3,000 in costs to the paternal grandparents to sanction the maternal grandparents' behaviour and partially indemnify the successful litigants.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from two motions heard on March 21, 2023.

The applicant father's motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, non-removal of children, and shared parenting was largely dismissed, except for the sale of the home.

The respondent mother's motion for child and spousal support was granted.

The court found the mother to be more successful and entitled to costs, particularly due to the father's unreasonable settlement offer and his opposition to the mother's reasonable offer.

The father was ordered to pay $7,500 in costs to the mother, to be paid from his share of the matrimonial home sale proceeds.

The father appealed a Superior Court order declaring him a vexatious litigant and denying his motion for an extension of time to appeal previous summary judgment and costs orders.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding no error in the analysis that the father had persistently and without reasonable grounds conducted court proceedings in a vexatious manner, and that the mother would be severely prejudiced by an extension of time given the father's unpaid costs.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant mother sought an order declaring the respondent father a vexatious litigant under s. 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, prohibiting him from instituting or continuing proceedings without leave.

The father opposed this and brought a cross-motion to extend time to perfect his appeal from a previous order dismissing his motion to change.

The court found the father had persistently conducted proceedings vexatiously, citing his unreasonable litigation approach, voluminous materials, and failure to pay substantial costs.

The court declared the father a vexatious litigant and ordered that he require leave for any future proceedings.

The father's motion to extend time to perfect his appeal was dismissed due to the overwhelming prejudice to the mother from outstanding costs and the lack of compelling merits in the appeal.