Civil Litigation - Defendant - ONCJ

This is a costs endorsement following a one-day trial that determined child support arrears owed by the respondent to the applicant.

The court found the respondent owed $16,613 and permitted monthly payments.

The applicant sought full recovery costs of $31,899, arguing the respondent acted in bad faith and that her offer to settle should trigger full recovery.

The court found the respondent's behavior unreasonable but not bad faith, and that the applicant's offer to settle was not more favourable than the trial result.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $9,000 in costs, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable in monthly installments of $250, and enforceable as support by the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant sought a restraining order under section 46 of the Family Law Act or, alternatively, orders restricting the respondent's contact and communication with her and their children under section 28 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondent sought dismissal of the claims.

The court found that the respondent had perpetrated family violence against the applicant and that the applicant had a reasonable fear.

However, the court dismissed the request for a restraining order, finding that suitable protection could be achieved through orders under section 28 of the Children's Law Reform Act, which were granted.

These orders restrict the respondent's contact with the applicant and children to specific terms.

This case addresses a father's motion to change child support and a previous costs order, and the mother's cross-motion for variation.

The court found the father's claims of changed circumstances (inability to find employment, homelessness) for 2019 lacked credibility and sufficient effort to secure employment.

While child support for 2020 and 2021 was agreed upon, the court imputed a higher income to the father for 2022 and 2023 due to insufficient disclosure and lack of credibility regarding his earnings and future earning potential as a paralegal.

The court maintained the equal sharing of section 7 expenses, departing from the presumptive rule due to the father's past choices negatively impacting child support.

The court also ruled it had no authority to vary the previous costs order, as it was a final order only changeable on appeal, and imposed a leave requirement for any future motions to change, contingent on the father's compliance with the outstanding costs order.

This is a costs decision arising from a motion to change spousal support brought by the husband.

The husband sought to reduce spousal support from $2,300 per month to $530 per month, retroactive to June 1, 2016.

The wife responded to the motion and made counter-claims for security of spousal support through life insurance.

The husband withdrew his motion after the wife responded and did not attend any subsequent court dates.

The wife was successful in obtaining orders for life insurance security and other protections.

The court awarded costs to the wife on a substantial recovery basis, finding the husband's conduct unreasonable and his failure to respond to the costs claim unopposed.

In this highly contested family law motion, the court addressed competing disclosure and procedural requests from both parents in a custody and access dispute involving allegations of sexual abuse.

The respondent sought production of communications with experts and the applicant's mental health records, while the applicant sought questioning of the respondent and an expert, as well as Crown disclosure.

The court granted partial relief to both parties, balancing the need for fair trial preparation against privacy interests and litigation efficiency.

The court approved mutual questioning of the parties but denied questioning of the jointly retained expert, granted production of the applicant's mental health records to the respondent's counsel (with restrictions), denied production of privileged communications with experts, and ordered a structured timeline for Crown disclosure.

The applicant mother sought an order for security for costs in the amount of $7,500.00 against the respondent father in a motion to change child support and access arrangements.

The respondent had failed to comply with multiple court orders for financial disclosure and a prior costs order.

The court dismissed the motion for security for costs, finding that while the respondent's non-compliance was serious, security for costs was not appropriate in a family law matter involving custody and access where the best interests of the child are paramount.

The court noted that the respondent was defending rather than pursuing the litigation and that ordering security would likely prevent the court from hearing evidence on what access arrangements would be in the child's best interests.

The applicant sought costs following the dismissal of the respondent's motion to set aside or vacate an arbitrator's award, remove the arbitrator, declare the mediation/arbitration agreement void, stay the arbitration, and determine the child's school for the 2012/2013 school year.

The applicant claimed full indemnity costs of $4,788.38, while the respondent sought no costs order.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant but reduced the amount to account for time spent on a prior motion step that was not compensated at that time.

Following the dismissal of an appeal regarding a municipal election compliance audit, the added parties (the candidates) sought costs against the appellant.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that she was a public interest litigant immune from costs, finding she continued to pursue abandoned and technical allegations on appeal.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing them at $12,600 for the three represented candidates and $1,000 for the self-represented candidate.