Patrice A.J. Cote

The applicant father brought a motion to vary an interim parenting schedule to increase his overnight parenting time with the parties' 20-month-old twins and to permit him to enroll them in daycare.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, citing severe health concerns for one of the twins who was immunocompromised following a lengthy hospitalization for meningoencephalitis.

The court dismissed the father's primary requests, finding no compelling reason to change the status quo and noting that daycare posed an unacceptable health risk at this time.

The court ordered an alternative schedule proposed by the mother and requested the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order that struck his pleadings for failing to comply with corporate disclosure obligations.

The court considered the factors for extending time under Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the delay was short, the court found that the proposed appeal lacked merit and appeared to be a collateral attack on a prior consent order.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

Following a trial where the plaintiffs recovered $87,917 on a $15 million claim for breach of a royalty agreement, the court determined costs and interest.

The defendants had made a $400,000 offer to settle just prior to trial.

The court found the plaintiffs were successful on only one issue and failed to accept a reasonable offer.

Applying Rule 49.13, the court awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer, and the defendants partial indemnity costs thereafter.

This resulted in a net costs award of $177,905.99 payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants.

Prejudgment interest was awarded at the Courts of Justice Act rate.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application under the Partition Act for the sale of a property registered solely in the respondent's name.

The application judge had dismissed the claim, finding on a paper record that the funds advanced by the appellant were a loan, not an investment giving rise to a trust interest.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the application judge erred in law by assessing credibility on material facts in dispute without directing a trial to hear viva voce evidence.

The judgment was set aside and a trial of the whole application was ordered.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order finding her in contempt of court for allegedly refusing to allow the respondent access to their children.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the contempt order due to several procedural defects, including the failure to rule on an adjournment request, denying the appellant the opportunity to cross-examine the respondent, and a defective notice of motion.

Costs of $3,000 were awarded to the appellant.

The appellants, a former condominium owner and a former management company, appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against a condominium corporation and its directors for alleged misappropriation of funds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal against the participating defendants, agreeing that the appellants lacked standing because they had no direct interest in the corporation's funds.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the non-participating defendants, as they had not sought summary judgment, and set aside the costs award because it was improperly made on a full indemnity basis without allowing the appellants to respond.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision striking their pleading under Rule 21.01(b).

The motion judge held that alleged violations of sections 4 and 42 of the Mortgages Act offered no defence to the claim for possession and the amount owing on the mortgage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit and refusing leave to amend the pleading to advance new causes of action.