Paul D. Amey

Following a prior decision granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs in the amount of $95,576.53 with prejudgment interest and no stay of execution, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs sought costs of approximately $38,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, arguing entitlement to elevated costs under Rule 49 due to settlement offers.

The court found Rule 49.10 inapplicable because no settlement offers remained open for acceptance at the time of the summary judgment motion.

Applying the general presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs, the court held the plaintiffs were entitled to partial indemnity costs.

After considering overlap between work on the claim and counterclaim, the court fixed costs at $31,000 inclusive of disbursements plus HST.

In a family law motion between separated parents with ongoing litigation concerning custody, access, and support, the moving party sought orders relating to the child’s schooling, interim spousal support, and funding to retain an expert.

The court held that maintaining stability for the child pending trial was in the child’s best interests and ordered continued enrolment at the Montessori school the child had been attending, with the responding party responsible for the school fees.

The court rejected the moving party’s claim for interim spousal support given the short duration of the marriage and absence of a compensatory or dependency basis for support.

The request for interim funding to retain an expert was also dismissed.

The court encouraged improved parental communication and directed that an expedited trial be scheduled if the issues could not be resolved at settlement.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant for $95,576.53 based on a personal indemnity agreement executed during the sale of a cosmetic clinic.

The defendant argued the indemnity was unenforceable because the underlying equipment leases were never formally assigned.

The court found the defendant waived the assignment requirement by completing the transaction and using the equipment for two years.

Summary judgment was granted, and the defendant's request for a stay pending her counterclaims was denied.

The respondent on appeal brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 61.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The underlying family law trial resulted in orders for an equalization payment, child support, and costs against the appellant, who was found to be recalcitrant and had income imputed to him.

The Court of Appeal found good reason to believe the appeal had no merit and that the appellant had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay the costs of the appeal.

The motion was granted, and the appellant was ordered to post $8,500 in security for costs.

Following a family law motion in which the moving party obtained an award of interim expenses but for a significantly reduced amount, the court determined costs of the motion.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that the successful party is presumptively entitled to costs absent unusual circumstances.

Although the moving party sought full indemnity costs exceeding $16,000, the court reduced the amount to account for partial success and for preparation time related to a separate motion to amend pleadings that had been adjourned.

The court also rejected allegations of bad faith relating to the timing of the opposing party’s cost submissions.

Costs were fixed on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $8,641.

The respondent wife brought a motion for interim disbursements to fund her response to the applicant husband's pending motion for summary judgment.

The underlying family law proceeding involved the validity of two domestic contracts and the applicant's interest in two family trusts.

The court applied the test for interim disbursements under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, finding that the respondent's case had sufficient merit to warrant pursuit and that she was impecunious.

The court ordered the applicant to pay $27,000 to cover legal and accounting fees necessary to respond to the summary judgment motion.

Following a multi-day family trial concerning custody of a child, the court had awarded custody to the father.

The father sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $25,000 for the trial.

The court considered the importance of the custody issue, the parties’ financial disparity, the conduct of the litigation, and a technically non‑compliant offer to settle under the Family Law Rules.

While the offer did not strictly comply with Rule 18(14), it could still be considered under Rule 18(16) in determining costs.

The court concluded that the father had been mostly successful and was entitled to recover his trial costs.

The applicant brought a motion to change an existing family court order governing parenting time.

The parties resolved most issues of access through minutes of settlement but disputed whether the respondent should have mid‑week access during the school year.

After hearing submissions, the court ordered that the respondent have Tuesday after‑school access until 8 p.m., with responsibility for school pickup and return to the applicant’s residence.

The court also required advance notice by text message if the respondent could not exercise the access.

Costs submissions were directed to be filed following the decision.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2) to set aside portions of a consent final order regarding shared custody, arguing her consent was obtained under duress.

The applicant claimed she was coerced into signing the agreement after the motions judge indicated in open court that he would otherwise grant primary residence to the respondent and restrict the applicant to supervised access.

The court found that the motions judge's comments placed illegitimate pressure on the applicant, vitiating her consent.

The motion was granted, the shared custody provisions were set aside, and the prior temporary arrangement was reinstated pending a case conference.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final order to transfer the primary residence of the parties' 10-year-old child to him.

The motion was prompted by the child expressing a strong desire to live with the applicant due to ongoing conflict and turmoil in the respondent mother's home, which included involvement by the Children's Aid Society and police related to the respondent's abusive partner.

The court found a material change in circumstances and applied the best interests of the child factors under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

Relying on the child's views and preferences, the instability in the respondent's home, and the applicant's stable plan, the court granted the motion and ordered that the child's primary residence be changed to the applicant.

Following a family law trial, the court determined the issue of costs.

The respondent at trial sought costs and relied on a prior Offer to Settle made approximately one year before trial, arguing the result obtained was more favourable than the offer.

The court found the offer triggered the cost consequences under Rule 18(14), entitling the successful party to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and full recovery costs thereafter.

The court accepted counsel’s hourly rates and disbursements as reasonable and noted the opposing party failed to provide costs submissions.

Costs were awarded in the amount of $32,000 inclusive, payable within 30 days.

The applicant father sought shared custody of his biological daughter, access to his step-daughter, and a determination of child support and equalization.

The court granted sole custody of both children to the respondent mother, maintaining the status quo for access.

The court imputed an income of $36,000 to the applicant due to his failure to disclose financial information.

The court ordered the applicant to pay child support for both children, apportioning the step-parent support obligation based on the biological father's higher income.

For equalization, the court discounted a $38,500 mortgage debt owed by the applicant to his father to nil, finding it was unlikely to ever be repaid, resulting in a $75,000 equalization payment owed to the respondent.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application for declaratory and injunctive relief regarding alleged zoning and sign by-law infractions by the respondents' moving business.

The respondents operated their business from a property zoned for agricultural use, claiming it was a permitted 'home occupation'.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the business activities, which were largely conducted off-site, did not contravene the zoning by-law.

The court also found no sign by-law infraction, as the municipality had granted exceptions.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff corporation sought an adjournment of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the action for failure to comply with interlocutory orders requiring payment of costs and posting of security for costs.

The plaintiff also requested extensions of time and a reduction of the security amount.

The court considered Rules 56.06, 56.07, 57.03, and 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the balance between enforcing court orders and allowing disputes to be decided on their merits.

Although the plaintiff had failed to comply with prior orders and had only partially raised the required funds, the court found limited evidence supporting a short final extension.

The court granted a final extension of time to post security for costs and pay outstanding costs but refused to reduce the security amount.

Following a family law judgment, the parties were unable to settle the wording of the final order concerning life insurance security.

The respondent agreed to maintain a $1 million life insurance policy naming the applicant as beneficiary but argued it should secure only the equalization payment.

The applicant argued the insurance should also secure spousal support obligations.

The court reviewed its notes and determined it had intended the policy to secure both equalization and spousal support obligations, and amended the earlier order under Rule 25(19)(b)(c) of the Family Law Rules to reflect that intention while preventing a windfall.

The appellants purchased a house from the respondents and subsequently discovered electrical, plumbing, and structural defects resulting from the respondents' DIY renovations and previous substandard work.

The appellants, who declined a pre-purchase inspection, sued for the cost of repairs, alleging the respondents concealed latent defects.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the respondents were unaware of the defects and did not actively conceal them.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that 'active concealment' requires an intention to hide a known defect, and the principle of caveat emptor applied.

The appellant appealed an order permitting the respondent to purchase his interest in the matrimonial home at a price fixed by the court.

The Court of Appeal found procedural unfairness because the respondent failed to serve an amended notice of motion indicating her intention to seek this specific relief, and the appellant was not present when the issue was argued.

Because the house had already been re-sold, the Court did not set aside the sale but ordered that the respondent held the appellant's interest in trust and must account to him for his share of the proceeds.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the lower court.

Following a successful appeal where the trial judgment was set aside, the appellants sought their trial costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of their offer to settle, and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter.

The Court of Appeal held that while Rule 49.10 does not strictly apply when a plaintiff recovers nothing, the court retains discretion under Rule 49.13 and section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Finding that the respondents engaged in egregious conduct and wasted time during the litigation, the Court awarded the appellants their claimed trial costs of $80,755.19.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision ordering the disclosure of a police officer's personnel file in a civil suit for wrongful detention and assault.

The court granted leave to appeal pursuant to Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding a conflict between the decision below and another case regarding the interpretation of sections 69 and 80 of the Police Services Act.

The court concluded it was desirable to clarify whether a police officer's personnel file should be disclosed in the context of a civil lawsuit.

The respondents, owners of cottage lots, had historically used the appellants' waterfront lots to access the beach.

The trial judge dismissed the respondents' claim for a prescriptive easement but granted them the right to use the beach based on proprietary estoppel.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the elements of proprietary estoppel were not met.

The respondents knew they only had permission to use the beach, there was no inducement by the appellants, the respondents did not act to their detriment, and it was not unconscionable for the appellants to withdraw their permission.