Nolan D.A. Wilson

The parties separated in 2015, and the appellant commenced an application seeking an equalization payment.

After nine years and multiple court orders, the appellant failed to provide complete financial disclosure regarding his bank accounts and alleged business interests.

The motion judge found the non-compliance egregious and struck the appellant's application under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules.

On appeal, the appellant argued the motion judge failed to consider the relevance of the undisclosed documents, the disclosure already made, and alternative remedies.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge properly applied the framework for assessing non-disclosure and reasonably concluded that the appellant's failure to disclose made it fundamentally unfair to expect the respondent to defend the equalization claim.

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 sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision without first exhausting statutory appeal rights under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Board moved to quash the application on this basis.

The court dismissed the motion to quash, noting that the Court of Appeal's recent decision in Yatar shifted the jurisprudential ground regarding the necessity of exhausting appeal rights before seeking judicial review.

The court deferred the issue to be decided by the panel hearing the application.

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.

The applicant sought costs following a family law trial involving divorce, parenting, and child support.

The court found that the respondent acted in bad faith by prolonging the trial with unproven allegations of domestic violence, thereby disentitling herself to costs and exposing herself to paying a portion of the applicant's costs.

The respondent was ordered to pay $5,000 in costs to the applicant.

At a case conference, the Landlord and Tenant Board sought to proceed with a motion to quash the applicant's application for judicial review.

The applicant argued the tribunal record should be produced first.

The court ordered that the motion to quash should proceed and set a timetable for the motion materials.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated after a highly conflictual relationship.

The mother made multiple allegations of domestic violence against the father, which the court found lacked credibility and corroborating evidence.

The court determined that the parents' mistrust and negative feelings were harming the children.

The court granted a divorce, awarded sole decision-making responsibility to the mother with a requirement to consult the father, and established a detailed parenting time schedule.

The father was ordered to pay child support and the parties were ordered to share section 7 expenses equally.

The court determined the costs of an appeal and related motions in a family law matter.

The respondent/appellant was successful on the appeal and sought costs of over $42,000.

The applicant/respondent in appeal argued she should not pay costs due to financial disparity and the impact on their child.

The court found the applicant's litigation conduct unreasonable but held the respondent's claimed costs were disproportionate to the amount at stake.

Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court fixed costs at $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant father appealed a costs order made following a summary judgment motion that dismissed the respondent mother's claims for retroactive and ongoing extraordinary child expenses.

The mother sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal regarding her financial inability to pay costs.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it incomplete and not determinative.

On the merits of the appeal, the court found the motion judge erred in concluding there was divided success and in failing to apply the presumptive costs consequences of rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules given the father's better offers to settle.

The appeal was allowed and costs of the summary judgment motion were fixed at $16,126.29 in favour of the father.