Civil Litigation - Defendant - ONCJ

This decision concerns the costs of a two-day family law trial.

The applicant mother sought costs of $11,769.90, while the respondent father disputed this and sought $13,392.

The court found the mother to be the successful party, as many issues were resolved in her favour or aligned with her initial offers.

The father's conduct, including attempting to raise new claims at trial and making a late, unreasonable offer, was deemed unreasonable.

The court emphasized that costs serve to indemnify successful litigants, encourage settlement, and discourage inappropriate behaviour.

The father was ordered to pay the mother $11,769.90 in costs.

Claude Laporte appealed his conviction for failing to comply with an Order to Comply under the Building Code Act.

The appeal raised four grounds: misapprehension of evidence regarding his testimony, incorrect interpretation of "build" and "owner" under the Building Code Act, improper judicial interference by raising the principle of collateral attack, and an erroneous consideration of the defence of officially induced error.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no material misapprehension of evidence, confirming the applicability of the collateral attack principle to administrative orders, and rejecting the officially induced error defence.

The respondent father, M.P., brought a motion to set aside a 2015 default order for child support, arguing he was not adequately notified of the hearing and citing mental distress.

He also contended he should not be considered a parent due to the circumstances of conception (he was 13, the applicant mother, A.J., was 16).

The court dismissed the motion, finding that M.P. did not bring the motion promptly, his explanation for default was unsatisfactory, and his argument regarding parentage lacked legal basis and was outside the Ontario Court of Justice's jurisdiction.

The accused brought a s. 11(b) Charter application for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 20.9 months (637 days), exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court cases.

The court deducted 21 days for defence-caused delay but found no basis to deduct time for the COVID-19 pandemic without specific evidentiary foundation.

The Crown failed to rebut the presumption of unreasonable delay or demonstrate that the case was particularly complex.

The court found a breach of the accused's s. 11(b) Charter right and entered a stay of proceedings.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion for temporary spousal support.

The applicant sought $6,138 in costs, while the respondent argued for no costs.

The court applied the four purposes of modern costs rules (indemnification, settlement encouragement, discouraging inappropriate behaviour, and ensuring justice) and considered factors under Family Law Rules subrule 24(12), including success, conduct, and offers to settle.

The applicant was deemed the more successful party, and the respondent's conduct, including contesting spousal status and making unsupported allegations, increased the motion's difficulty.

The court awarded the applicant $5,085 in costs, payable in installments, noting the respondent's ability to pay and poor payment history.

This decision addresses motions by both the applicant mother and respondent father for temporary orders concerning their child, Jaylan.

The mother sought exclusive decision-making responsibility (DMR) and supervised parenting time, while the father sought week-about parenting time and Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) involvement.

The court declined to grant temporary DMR to either parent, finding both immature.

OCL involvement was also declined at this stage due to lack of evidence and potential delay.

The court ordered supervised parenting time for the father, including twice weekly at the Sudbury Supervised Access Centre and once monthly with overnights at the maternal grandmother's home, supervised by the grandmother.

The child's primary residence was ordered to remain with the mother.

The court also highlighted significant procedural irregularities by both parties and their counsel, including improper filing and prohibited disclosure of settlement conference discussions.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking three orders: (1) to set aside the default judgment and striking of his Motion to Change; (2) to set aside the order allowing the applicant mother's Response to proceed as an uncontested trial; and (3) to set aside ex parte temporary orders restricting his access to his son and imposing a restraining order.

The father had a history of missed court appearances and procedural non-compliance spanning several years.

The court set aside the default judgment and striking order, finding that the interests of justice favored allowing the father to be heard on the mother's newly sought relief in her trial materials, despite his poor procedural conduct.

The court restored the 50-50 residence arrangement but maintained the restraining order and imposed conditions on the father's conduct, including restrictions on alcohol and drug use during the child's residence with him and prohibition on personal use of the child's electronic devices.

The applicant brought a motion to change a child support order dated September 11, 2012, seeking to increase the respondent's child support obligation based on evidence of his actual income.

The respondent initially sought a reduction in child support based on alleged medical incapacity but provided fraudulent documentation.

The court found that the respondent had forged a union letter and was not credible.

Based on union records showing the respondent's actual earnings, the court varied the child support order retroactively to January 1, 2016, increasing the monthly payments from $303 to amounts ranging from $352 to $589 per month based on attributed incomes ranging from $39,303 to $63,426.

The respondent's motion to change was dismissed, and the applicant's claim for transportation costs was dismissed.

The offender was convicted after an eleven-day trial of multiple serious firearm offences arising from an incident on July 31, 2017, including discharging a firearm with intent to endanger, pointing a firearm, and possession of a firearm without a licence.

He also pleaded guilty to breaches of recognizance and probation from 2018.

The court imposed a global sentence of 7 years less 34½ months presentence custody credit, resulting in a net sentence of 61 months, with lifetime firearms prohibitions, DNA orders, and a forfeiture order.

The offender's extensive criminal history, pattern of recidivism, breaches of court orders, and the serious nature of the firearm offences were significant aggravating factors.

A child protection motion for summary judgment on disposition following a finding that the child was in need of protection.

The applicant sought an order for extended society care without access.

The parents consented to the finding of need for protection but failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment on disposition.

The court granted the motion, ordering extended society care without access to the respondent parents, finding that the child remained at risk of exposure to domestic violence and parental instability, and that the parents had failed to demonstrate capacity for meaningful engagement with access.

A motion for costs brought by the respondent father against the Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel in a child protection matter.

The father challenged the Society's apprehension of his newborn son, arguing the Society acted unfairly and with reckless disregard when the dispute was merely between separated parents regarding discharge from hospital.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Society acted reasonably and fairly in obtaining a warrant to apprehend the child following a serious conflict at the hospital involving verbal and physical confrontation between the parents, concerns raised about the mother's mental health, and intervention by nursing staff, security, and police.

The child was returned to the father's care within five days with a settlement agreement.

This is a costs decision following a six-day trial on a motion to change dealing with custody and access of a child.

The applicant was primarily successful at trial and had served an Offer to Settle that was not accepted by the respondents.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, considering the applicant's success, the Offer to Settle, the respondents' unreasonable positions at trial, and the respondents' modest financial means.

The court rejected arguments that the respondents' financial circumstances should shield them from a costs award, while still moderating the quantum to reflect fairness and reasonableness.

This is a child protection case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving two young children apprehended at birth due to deplorable living conditions, lack of prenatal care, domestic violence, and parental capacity concerns.

The Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship with no access for adoption purposes.

The parents sought return of the children to the mother's care, with the father seeking alternative return to his care.

The court found that a parenting capacity assessment report constituted a genuine issue requiring trial determination and ordered a "mini-trial" under Rule 16(6.2) of the Family Law Rules to hear evidence from the psychologist and the parents before deciding whether a full trial was necessary.

A costs decision following the court's earlier orders striking the applicant's pleadings for breaches of court orders and granting a final order in a family law matter.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs totalling $15,530.61 for a motion to strike and the remainder of the proceeding.

The applicant was self-represented and failed to make settlement offers or comply with disclosure obligations.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to the respondent, finding the applicant engaged in bad faith conduct and unreasonable behaviour.

The applicant, a youth worker injured during an incident with a young person in care, sought access to the pre-sentence report of the young person who was subsequently charged with assault.

The applicant was pursuing a negligence action against the youth residential services facility.

The court granted limited access to the pre-sentence report under section 119(1)(s) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, balancing the applicant's valid interest in the information for civil litigation purposes against the strong privacy protections afforded to young persons under the Act.

Access was restricted to exclude information derived from child protection files and mental health assessments, with strict confidentiality conditions imposed.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change a separation agreement regarding child and spousal support obligations.

The applicant sought to reduce support based on loss of employment and subsequent new employment at a lower income.

The applicant was substantially successful, obtaining a reduction in spousal support and rescission of arrears, but was unsuccessful in obtaining a time-limited termination of spousal support.

The court awarded costs to the applicant, finding he was the more successful party overall, while considering the respondent's limited financial circumstances and the reasonableness of both parties' conduct.

The applicants sought costs awards against the Crown following the dismissal of the Crown's forfeiture applications under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown had sought forfeiture of two properties allegedly used in connection with marijuana grow operations.

The court found that the Crown's conduct in commencing restraint and forfeiture applications against innocent third parties, without evidence of complicity or collusion, constituted a marked and unacceptable departure from the reasonable standards expected of the prosecution.

The Crown failed to properly assess available evidence before proceeding and maintained an intransigent "hardball" attitude throughout the proceedings.

The court determined that costs awards were warranted.

A child protection motion for summary judgment brought by Chatham-Kent Children's Services seeking Crown wardship of two children with no access.

The respondent parents had histories of drug use and criminal activity.

The father had engaged in ongoing criminal conduct including break and enter offences and was facing drug charges.

The mother had demonstrated some progress in addiction treatment through methadone programming but continued to test positive for illicit drugs including amphetamines and methamphetamines.

Both children had been in care well beyond the statutory period requiring permanency planning.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted Crown wardship with no access for purposes of adoption.

A motion brought by counsel for the mother seeking to be removed as solicitor of record in a child protection proceeding scheduled for trial.

The mother's counsel sought removal due to financial hardship, as the mother had no capacity to pay further legal fees and did not qualify for legal aid.

The court dismissed the motion, balancing the hardship to counsel against the potential prejudice to the mother and the administration of justice.

The court found that the mother would be at a considerable disadvantage if forced to represent herself, particularly given the complexity of the case, the mother's limited English proficiency, and the fact that she would be facing experienced counsel for both the society and the father.

The respondent mother sought costs relating to an application for custody and access brought by the applicant father.

The father sought joint custody and structured access, while the mother sought sole custody, access, and child support.

After a trial on February 5, 2013, the court awarded the mother sole custody.

The mother claimed costs totaling $4,785.95 for legal representation during the proceedings.

The court awarded the mother half of her claimed costs ($2,393) to be paid by the father within 90 days, finding that the costs were reasonably incurred and that the father's financial circumstances and child support obligations were relevant considerations.