Odette Rwigamba

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment (CAT) under Criteria 7 and 8.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant did not meet her burden of proof.

Under Criterion 7, the applicant's own assessors provided conflicting mental and behavioural impairment ratings (40% vs. 34% WPI), and even combining the lower rating with her physical impairment rating did not meet the 55% threshold.

Under Criterion 8, the Tribunal rejected findings of 'at times' Marked impairment as ambiguous and noted unexplained inconsistencies between the applicant's assessors regarding her level of impairment over time.

The applicant's claims for various treatment plans, an award, and interest were also dismissed as she failed to provide submissions or evidence supporting the plans.

The plaintiff sought to amend her claim to proceed under Rule 76 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, capping damages at $200,000, after the action had been set down for a jury trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the prejudice to the defendant too great and the timing of the amendment to be an abuse of process.

The decision discusses the availability of accommodations for disabled litigants, the prejudice inherent in late procedural changes, and the tactical nature of the plaintiff’s request.

The applicant sought a determination from the Licence Appeal Tribunal on whether her injuries from a motor vehicle accident fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) as a standalone preliminary issue.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the applicability of the MIG in the absence of a specific disputed medical or rehabilitation benefit tied to it.

The Tribunal noted that the MIG is a treatment framework, not a statutory accident benefit itself, and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the Applicant (Father) for parenting time with his child.

The Applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court applied Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, considering factors such as the importance and complexity of the issues, the parties' conduct, and access to justice.

While the Applicant was largely successful in obtaining parenting time, the court found the issues not complex and did not find bad faith on the Respondent's part, noting her language difficulties, change of counsel, and stated fear of the Father.

Given the Respondent's limited financial means and Legal Aid funding, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, reducing the amount sought to $4,000 to ensure access to justice.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking parenting time with the child, who he had not seen since the parties' separation ten months prior.

The respondent mother sought supervised parenting time, alleging past abuse and mental health concerns regarding the father.

The court, applying the child's best interests principle and the maximum contact principle, found no sufficient evidence to warrant supervised access.

The court crafted a gradual step-up parenting schedule for the father, rejecting his proposed immediate extensive schedule as too abrupt, and dismissed the mother's request for supervision.

Following a family law trial where the court found the applicant mother had alienated the children from the respondent father, the parties settled all outstanding issues except costs.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $110,000, arguing he was the successful party and the applicant acted unreasonably.

The applicant sought costs of up to $96,579, arguing she was more successful as the children remained in her primary care.

The court found the applicant's behaviour was unreasonable and necessitated the trial.

The court awarded the respondent costs of $60,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion for the immediate return of the parties' three youngest children after the applicant father unilaterally withheld them following an access visit.

The father alleged the children disclosed physical abuse by the mother, but police and child protection investigations were inconclusive and noted changing disclosures.

The court found overwhelming evidence of parental alienation by the father, including coaching the children to make false allegations and fear their mother.

The court ordered the immediate return of the children to the mother's sole care, suspended the father's access, and authorized police enforcement.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2014 consent order that provided for joint custody and equal parenting time.

She sought sole custody, alleging the respondent father physically and emotionally abused their 14-year-old son, causing the child to fear him and refuse contact.

The father sought sole custody, alleging the mother alienated the child.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's abusive behaviour and awarded sole custody to the mother, with access at her discretion in accordance with the child's wishes.

The court also imputed income to the father at $71,333 for child support purposes, finding him intentionally underemployed, and ordered payment of child support and arrears.

The applicant mother, wholly successful in the underlying trial concerning parenting and child support, sought full costs.

The respondent father, who was self-represented and made no cost submissions, had made significantly less favorable offers to settle than what was ultimately ordered.

The court considered the four purposes of modern costs rules, the mother's success, her generous offers to settle, and the father's conduct and limited financial means.

Despite the father's low imputed income, his unreasonable conduct and the mother's more advantageous offers justified a significant cost award.

The court awarded the mother $30,000 in all-inclusive costs, with $10,000 enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office as child support.

The parties separated in 2016, after which the mother severely restricted the father's access to their two children.

The father sought sole custody and the imputation of income to the mother, alleging parental alienation and intentional underemployment.

The court found that the mother had alienated the children from the father and was intentionally underemployed by choosing to work only part-time night shifts.

The court imputed an annual income of $50,000 to the mother and ordered a temporary schedule of increased access for the father, deferring a final decision on custody for four months to monitor the mother's compliance and the progress of reunification counselling.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' two children and child support based on imputed income.

The respondent father sought sole custody and argued he had no obligation to pay child support due to his status as a full-time student and minimal income.

The court found the father had used excessive physical discipline and involved the children in the parental dispute, causing emotional harm.

The mother was granted sole custody, with the father's access to be gradually reinstated upon completion of parenting and discipline courses.

The court also found the father intentionally unemployed to avoid child support and imputed income based on full-time minimum wage.

The respondent father brought a motion for increased interim access to the parties' two younger children.

The applicant mother opposed the increase but agreed to reunification counselling.

The court found evidence that the mother was negatively influencing the children against the father, supported by an OCL clinical investigation report.

The court ordered increased access, including separate access for the youngest child, and directed the parties to commence reunification counselling with costs shared proportionately to their incomes as a section 7 expense.

Following a family law trial with divided success, both parties sought costs.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $52,218.97, while the respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $11,111.11.

Both parties alleged bad faith against the other.

The court reviewed the offers to settle and the behaviour of the parties, noting that the applicant had unilaterally removed the child and the respondent had sold the matrimonial home without consent.

Given the divided success and the poor behaviour of both parties, the court made no order as to costs.

The Applicant sought custody, access, spousal and child support, equalization of net family property, and permission to travel internationally with the child without the Respondent's consent.

The Respondent sought custody, no equalization, and restrictions on the child's travel documents.

The court granted joint custody with the Applicant having primary residence and final decision-making authority in case of disagreement.

Unilateral international travel for either parent was denied due to Iraq not being a Hague Convention signatory.

The court ordered child and spousal support, and an equalization payment to the Applicant, including a deferred maher payment, but applied an unequal division of net family property due to the short cohabitation period.

The applicant sought to stay the enforcement of child support until his Motion to Change was determined.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking to strike the applicant's pleadings due to his non-payment of two previous cost orders.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding he had the ability to pay costs but was refusing to do so, thereby attempting to circumvent prior court orders.

The court stayed the applicant's Motion to Change proceedings until all outstanding costs were paid in full, including those awarded in this motion.

The respondent was granted leave to bring a future motion to strike the applicant's pleadings if costs remained unpaid by a specified date.

Costs for this motion were awarded to the respondent and the Family Responsibility Office.

The father brought a motion to change a final order regarding access, child support, and section 7 expenses following his move to Nova Scotia and release from the Canadian Forces.

The court varied the access schedule to provide for extended visits in Nova Scotia, with the child travelling as an unaccompanied minor.

However, the court dismissed the father's request to reduce child support, finding he failed to establish a medical inability to work and was voluntarily underemployed.

The court also reduced the mother's claim for section 7 expenses by amounts incurred without the father's consent.

This was a family law costs decision following a trial involving income determination, child support, spousal support, equalization, and a claim under a Mahr.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, found divided success but concluded the respondent was the more successful party when the offers to settle, trial positions, and ultimate result were considered.

Allegations of bad faith and unreasonable conduct were rejected.

Costs were fixed at $30,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, and $160,000 held in the applicant's counsel's trust account was ordered paid to the respondent forthwith against the sums owing under the trial judgment.

The parties separated after a 16-year marriage with four children.

The father, a denturist with his own business, sought sole custody and child support, while the mother sought spousal support, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The court determined the parties' respective incomes, declining to impute income to the mother for pursuing a Master's degree and finding the father's income to be $90,000 based on a mortgage application.

The court ordered the father to pay an equalization payment of $110,666.79, plus $56,498.62 owing under a Maher contract, which was found to be a valid and enforceable civil contract.

The father was also ordered to pay retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support.

The father brought a motion for interim custody of the parties' one-year-old child, and the mother brought a cross-motion for child and spousal support.

The mother had unilaterally left the matrimonial home with the child, and the father subsequently sold the home without her consent.

The court found the mother had been the primary caregiver since birth and her departure was not a tactical maneuver, whereas the father's sale of the home prioritized his own interests.

The court ordered that the child's primary residence remain with the mother, granted the father specified parenting time, and ordered the father to pay retroactive child and spousal support.

The appellant appealed a trial decision regarding custody, access, and section 7 expenses.

He argued the trial judge was biased, improperly curtailed his questioning, and erred in granting the respondent final decision-making power and ordering him to pay 100% of extraordinary expenses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's interventions appropriate, the custody arrangement sensible to minimize conflict, and the section 7 order a reasonable exercise of discretion given the significant income disparity between the parties.