Peter M. Callahan

The applicant sought payment of the outstanding balance under a promissory note after the respondents failed to make required quarterly instalment payments.

The proceeding was brought under Rule 14.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for determination of rights dependent on the interpretation of a contract.

The court held that the note required payment of the full $100,000 instalment on the first day of each quarter and rejected the respondents’ argument that payment could be completed anytime within the quarter.

The court further held that written notice of default had been provided and that the respondents failed to cure the default within the 30‑day notice period required to avoid the acceleration clause.

The entire outstanding balance therefore became immediately due and payable.

Following a nine‑day family law trial involving property division, equalization, spousal support, and divorce, the respondent sought full indemnity costs.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and found that the applicant had engaged in unreasonable litigation conduct, including pursuing baseless allegations of fraud, excessive disclosure demands, and positions lacking legal merit.

The respondent had made early and later offers to settle that were as favourable as or better than the ultimate trial outcome and succeeded on all material issues.

Considering the applicant’s conduct and the settlement offers, the court ordered full indemnity costs in favour of the respondent.

On an addendum to an earlier family law endorsement, the court considered whether a charge against the former matrimonial home should be amended to capture additional retroactive support arrears accruing between the motion date and the date of decision.

The court accepted the moving party's calculation and increased the charge by two additional monthly support payments, amending the total secured amount to $44,298.00.

The court also reviewed a claimed error in the cost outline but declined to vary the prior costs award.

The applicant moved for judgment for unpaid severance payments required by a consent family law final order, and for a charge on the matrimonial home to secure support arrears, severance payments, and unpaid costs.

The court held that the severance payments were intended as a vehicle for interim support and were to continue until the corporate employer ceased operations, which occurred later than originally contemplated.

Judgment for $24,000 was granted against the respondent personally, and a charge of $40,570 was imposed on the matrimonial home under s. 34 of the Family Law Act.

The respondent's cross-motion concerning an alleged CRA-related indemnity debt was adjourned to permit a final opportunity to provide proper documentary proof.

The applicant, as the successful party, received costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

Following a trial in a matrimonial proceeding, the court determined issues of equalization, spousal support, child support, and access.

The court found that shares held by the respondent were beneficially owned by his father and excluded them from equalization.

The court declined to grant the applicant a right of first refusal to purchase the matrimonial home, ordering its sale absent agreement.

For support purposes, the respondent's employee retention bonus was included in his 2014 income.

Spousal support was ordered at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, as the court found the applicant's new relationship was not yet spouse-like.

Access was ordered according to the respondent's requested schedule, but made subject to the 14-year-old child's wishes.

Following a motion and counter-motion where the applicant was largely successful in obtaining support and dismissing a contempt motion, both parties sought costs.

The respondent sought full recovery costs alleging bad faith by the applicant for breaching a court order.

The court found no bad faith or malice, noting both parties exhibited some unreasonable conduct.

As the largely successful party, the applicant was awarded costs on a partial recovery basis fixed at $6,000, as no formal offers to settle were made.

The court addressed scheduling for expedited civil actions that had not been reached during the January 2015 civil blitz sittings.

Defence counsel sought appointment of a case management judge, while the court required submissions on fixing a trial date in light of the age of the actions and an earlier expedited trial order.

The court held that the matters should proceed before the same judge on a fixed three-week trial commencing November 30, 2015.

Plaintiff's counsel was required to reassign or adjourn other matters if necessary.

This was a costs endorsement following a family trial concerning the father's claim for unsupervised access and, to a lesser extent, joint custody or decision-making respecting the child.

The court rejected any suggestion of divided success and found the matter should have been resolved without trial.

The court held the respondent's inflexible position made settlement impossible and accepted the time spent and hourly rates of the applicant's counsel as reasonable and necessary.

Costs were awarded to the applicant inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant father sought unsupervised access and joint custody of his young son.

The respondent mother opposed, citing fears for her safety and alleging the father had anger and alcohol issues, and requested continued supervised access.

After a lengthy trial reviewing the parties' tumultuous relationship and the father's successful supervised visits, the court found no evidence the father posed a danger to the child.

The court ordered joint custody with divided final decision-making authority, a progressive schedule for unsupervised access, and mandated the use of Our Family Wizard for communication.

This is a costs decision following a seven-day family law trial concerning parenting arrangements and child support for a child.

The applicant was successful at trial, obtaining sole custody and child support arrears and ongoing support significantly more favorable than the respondent's offer to settle.

The applicant seeks $60,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The respondent argues costs should not exceed $10,000 and seeks to attribute costs to the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court awards the applicant $59,500 in costs, finding the applicant acted reasonably, made a comprehensive offer to settle that was rejected, and achieved a result more favorable than the offer.

The respondent's conduct, while not unreasonable, resulted in an unnecessary trial that could have been avoided by accepting the settlement offer.

Following a 27‑year marriage, the parties litigated issues relating to equalization of property, division of assets, and spousal support under the Divorce Act and Family Law Act.

The court addressed disputes regarding the valuation of shares in a jointly owned business, claimed exclusions for gifts between spouses, alleged undisclosed assets, and income available for support.

The court rejected the claim for exclusion of jewellery gifts and declined to account for notional disposition costs of corporate shares due to insufficient evidence.

Although the applicant had contributed financially in the early years of the marriage while the respondent built the business, the court held she had already been compensated through shared lifestyle benefits and the multimillion‑dollar buyout of her corporate shares, precluding compensatory support.

However, recognizing the long marriage and needs‑based considerations, the court ordered spousal support at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The appellant challenged a motion judge’s refusal to set aside a noting in default, arguing that the finding that it was merely delaying trial was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal held that the impugned finding was justified on the record and accepted the motion judge’s view that the pleading complaints amounted to clutching at trivialities.

Because that finding was central to the refusal to set aside the default, appellate intervention was unwarranted.

The appeal was dismissed with partial indemnity costs fixed at $8,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The appellant was originally charged with indictable offences and elected trial by judge and jury in the Superior Court of Justice.

On the trial date, the Crown re-elected to proceed by summary conviction, and the appellant pleaded guilty before the Superior Court judge.

The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing the sentencing judge lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal held that while the Crown had the authority to re-elect the mode of proceeding, the Superior Court of Justice is not a summary conviction court and lacked jurisdiction to take the guilty pleas and impose sentence.

The appeal was allowed, the sentence and pleas were quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Ontario Court of Justice.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce security granted by the defendant over her investment account for a loan advanced to a corporation operated by her brother.

The defendant argued she should not be liable because the plaintiff failed to ensure she received independent legal advice before pledging the security.

The court found the documentary record established the security was knowingly provided for the loan and that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial under Rule 20.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Distinguishing authorities involving vulnerable guarantors and unconscionable transactions, the court held no duty arose to ensure independent legal advice in the circumstances.

Summary judgment was granted and the investment account ordered liquidated to satisfy the debt.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike a statement of claim alleging malicious prosecution and conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution following a fraud charge that was later stayed.

The court held that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The conspiracy allegations lacked the necessary particulars regarding the alleged agreement and overt acts of the conspirators.

The malicious prosecution claim also failed because the pleadings did not adequately allege absence of reasonable and probable cause or malice, as required by the Supreme Court of Canada in Miazga v. Kvello Estate.

The statement of claim against the Attorney General was therefore struck.

The applicant brought a motion to change child support, which the respondent eventually settled by accepting an offer.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The court found that the respondent engaged in bad faith by deliberately failing to make timely financial disclosure, which unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $32,223.69, representing partial recovery up to the date of her offer to settle and full recovery thereafter.

A law firm brought motions in two related civil actions seeking to be removed as solicitors of record for their former clients and requesting costs personally against another lawyer under rule 57.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The moving firm alleged that the other lawyer had undertaken to file notices of change of lawyer and failed to do so, thereby forcing the motions.

The court found that no undertaking had been given regarding one of the actions and that the undertaking in the other action was conditional upon file review and further information.

The court held that the evidence did not establish that the lawyer caused costs to be incurred without reasonable cause or through undue delay or negligence.

Applying the caution required before ordering costs personally against counsel, the court declined to impose personal liability.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion for a finding that the respondent was in contempt of court for failing to comply with a disclosure order.

The Court of Appeal held that an order dismissing a motion for contempt is interlocutory, not final, as it is not binding on the trial judge.

Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant mother appealed an order finding her in contempt for allegedly manipulating her 16-year-old daughter into refusing to attend a March break vacation with the respondent father.

The motion judge had ordered a temporary change in custody as a remedy.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the contempt finding, noting procedural errors, failure to consider all evidence, and an unreasonable conclusion on the record.

The Court also held that changing custodial arrangements is not an available remedy for contempt under Rule 31(5) of the Family Law Rules and cannot be used as punishment.

Shareholders and a former director brought a motion seeking to strike the defendants’ statement of defence for alleged non-disclosure, or alternatively compelling additional corporate and financial production.

The underlying action alleged that the defendants, as directors, diverted a corporate opportunity to another entity and caused the insolvency of the corporation.

The court reviewed the history of disclosure and determined that extensive corporate, technical, contractual, and financial records had already been produced.

The requested additional production was found to be overly broad and unsupported by evidence establishing relevance to issues in dispute.

The motion for additional disclosure was dismissed and the matter was directed to proceed to an expedited trial.