Price

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion for leave to appeal a temporary custody order, the self-represented applicant sought costs.

The court found the respondent's motion was unreasonable and should not have been brought, warranting costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court held that the applicant, though self-represented, performed the work of a lawyer efficiently and was entitled to be compensated for her time at a rate of $200 per hour.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of $12,091.85.

The respondent mother brought a motion to find the applicant father in contempt and to strike his pleadings due to his failure to provide financial disclosure and his delay in paying the retainer for a court-ordered assessment of the children.

The court found that the father willfully breached multiple court orders, prejudicing the mother's ability to determine his income for support purposes and delaying the resolution of custody issues.

Applying the test for striking pleadings under Rule 14(23) of the Family Law Rules, the court struck the father's pleadings on the issues of equalization and support, allowing the mother to proceed to an uncontested hearing on those issues.

The court declined to strike his pleadings regarding custody and access in the best interests of the children.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment.

Four days before the hearing, the defendant delivered a detailed responding affidavit alleging accounting irregularities.

The plaintiff sought an adjournment to deliver reply evidence and cross-examine the affiant.

The defendant opposed, arguing Rule 20 does not permit reply evidence by a moving party.

The court held that the moving party in a summary judgment motion may deliver reply evidence to ensure the court can gain a full appreciation of the facts.

The adjournment was granted, leave to file reply evidence was given, and the defendant was ordered to pay costs thrown away.

The applicant elector brought an application under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act alleging that the respondent town councillor had a conflict of interest when he voted to approve a grant to the local Chamber of Commerce.

The applicant argued the respondent had a pecuniary interest because he owned a business and property in the town and was a member of the Chamber.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the respondent did not have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the grant.

The court further held that even if a pecuniary interest existed, it was exempt as being insignificant and in common with electors generally, and any contravention would have been saved as a good faith error in judgment.

The mother brought a motion to change the father's access to their two children from unsupervised to supervised, and to dispense with his consent for the children to travel outside Canada.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking to use his share of the matrimonial home's sale proceeds to pay his criminal defence costs.

The court dismissed the mother's request for supervised access, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify restricting the father's access, but ordered that access exchanges occur through a third party or supervised access centre to minimize conflict.

The court granted the mother permission to travel with the children subject to notice requirements.

The father's request to use the sale proceeds for his legal defence was dismissed, as the funds were needed to secure his future child support obligations.

The respondent was substantially successful on motions to bifurcate the trial and compel financial disclosure from the applicant, who was seeking to set aside their separation agreement.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The respondent sought $12,290.00 on a substantial indemnity scale, while the applicant argued for $3,000.00.

The court found that the applicant's conduct in challenging the agreement while concealing his current financial circumstances warranted costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court fixed the respondent's costs at $8,407.20, inclusive of HST, after adjusting the hours claimed for preparation to ensure proportionality and reasonableness.

The applicant father brought a motion regarding child support for his three children, including his adult stepdaughter who was attending university away from home and had become estranged from him after discovering his marital infidelity.

The mother sought interim child support, a contribution to university expenses, and orthodontic costs.

The court found that the stepdaughter remained a child of the marriage and her estrangement did not disentitle her to support.

The court imputed $5,000 in undeclared hockey refereeing income to the father, found the table amount inappropriate for a child living away for university, and ordered the father to pay a proportionate share of the university expenses after deducting the child's contribution.

The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce unsigned minutes of settlement that were negotiated to vary a 2008 separation agreement.

The respondent father refused to sign the minutes after his renovation business failed, arguing a material change in circumstances and an unresolved issue regarding the child's allergies.

The court found that no final agreement was reached and declined to enforce the draft minutes, applying the Nigris factors.

Instead, the court varied the child support obligations based on the father's reduced imputed income and established a comprehensive access and holiday schedule.

The applicant mother brought a motion for sole custody and primary residence of the parties' two young children, along with full table child support.

The respondent father sought sole custody and a variable parenting schedule based on his work as a pilot, with set-off child support.

The court found that both parents were capable and loving but exhibited high conflict and poor communication.

The court ordered shared (parallel) custody, dividing decision-making responsibilities between the parents, and established a fixed, predictable parenting schedule to provide stability for the children.

The father was ordered to pay full table child support and his proportionate share of section 7 daycare expenses.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim joint custody and equal parenting time of the parties' two-and-a-half-year-old daughter.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, seeking sole custody.

The court found that the high level of conflict between the parties, exacerbated by the paternal grandmother's interference and denigration of the mother, made joint custody or parallel parenting inappropriate.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, finding it in the child's best interests, and ordered a specified access schedule for the father.

The plaintiffs sought directions after the defendant paid an outstanding costs order but failed to comply with the remaining terms of a previous order requiring him to produce financial documents and attend for cross-examination regarding his claim of impecuniosity.

The defendant argued that paying the costs relieved him of the other obligations.

The court held that the defendant could not selectively comply with the order to avoid cross-examination, as his financial status was relevant to the broader proceeding.

The court ordered the defendant to produce the documents and attend for cross-examination, failing which the plaintiffs could return their motion to strike his Statement of Defence.

The wife brought a motion to find her husband in contempt for failing to comply with several court orders, including orders to pay child and spousal support, return a boat, reinstate medical/dental insurance, and file an updated financial statement.

The court found the husband in contempt for failing to return the boat and for failing to pay $7,626.00 in support arrears.

The court rejected the husband's evidence regarding cash payments and alleged forged receipts, directing the wife to provide the evidence to the police for investigation.

The court ordered the husband to pay the arrears, secure medical/dental coverage, and set a schedule for further disclosure and a settlement conference.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant mortgagee, seeking a refund of overpayments and punitive damages.

The defendant had previously obtained a default judgment for $46,950.19 but later demanded $82,238.28 to discharge the mortgage when the plaintiffs sold their home.

The court found that the registrar had unlawfully signed the initial default judgment for unliquidated claims.

Furthermore, the court held that the defendant's demand for accelerated interest and excessive fees violated section 8 of the Interest Act and the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act.

The court ordered the defendant to refund $40,223.85 and awarded $30,000 in punitive damages for its high-handed and unconscionable conduct.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment for the balance of proceeds from the sale of a property she held in trust for the defendants, her daughter and son-in-law.

The son-in-law opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiff breached her trust duties by delegating control of the trust funds to her daughter and by selling the property improvidently.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's delegation of discretionary trust powers and the need for an accounting of the trust funds raised genuine issues requiring a trial.

The plaintiffs, who operate a commercial lighting manufacturing business, brought an action against the defendants, who operate an adjacent transport and warehousing business.

The plaintiffs claimed that dust from the defendants' unpaved parking lot constituted a nuisance that interfered with their manufacturing process, causing a loss of productivity.

They also claimed that the defendants' transport trucks repeatedly trespassed onto their driveway, damaging curb stones and displacing concrete blocks.

The court found that the dust constituted an actionable nuisance and awarded damages for loss of productivity and refinishing costs.

The court also found that the trucks trespassed on the plaintiffs' property, holding the corporate defendants and their director personally liable.

Damages were awarded for the trespass, and a permanent injunction was granted to restrain further trespassing.

The applicant moved for the interim sale of the matrimonial home and enforcement of a parenting agreement.

The respondent cross-moved for interim spousal support and interim child support for the parties' child and her child from a previous relationship.

The court dismissed the motion for the sale of the home, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the respondent's right to possession.

The court dismissed the claim for child support for the stepchild due to insufficient evidence that the applicant stood in the place of a parent.

The court ordered interim child and spousal support based on the applicant's 2011 income, imputing income despite his claim of inability to work due to a motor vehicle accident.

The court also affirmed the applicant's right to mid-week access.

The mother appealed a summary judgment order that made her three-year-old child a Crown ward without access.

She brought a motion to stay the no-access order pending the hearing of her appeal.

The court found that the appeal raised serious issues, particularly regarding the motion judge's reliance on hearsay evidence and the mother's intention to introduce fresh evidence of her improved circumstances.

The court also determined that resuming supervised access was in the child's best interests, given the mother's positive interactions with the child and the risk of permanent psychological harm if access remained severed.

The motion was granted, and supervised access was ordered pending the appeal.

The parties, who separated in 2006 after a high-conflict marriage, both sought sole custody of their two children.

The father had primary care of the children during the week, while the mother had access on weekends.

The court found that both parents were loving and competent, but their inability to communicate and the father's controlling behaviour made joint custody unworkable.

To ensure both parents remained actively involved in the children's lives, the court ordered a shared (parallel) custody arrangement.

The children would reside with the father from Tuesday to Saturday and with the mother from Saturday to Tuesday.

Decision-making was divided: the father would decide on education, the mother on health and religion, and extra-curriculars would be decided jointly.

The mother was ordered to pay the set-off amount of child support under section 9 of the Guidelines.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim child and spousal support.

The respondent father had recently left his high-paying job at his parents' business to become a commercial real estate agent, resulting in a significant drop in his reported income.

He also failed to comply with court orders requiring financial disclosure.

The court found the respondent was intentionally under-employed and imputed an income of $124,000 to him based on his past earnings.

The court imputed an income of $28,000 to the applicant.

The respondent was ordered to pay interim child support of $1,709 per month and interim spousal support of $1,876 per month, retroactive to January 2012.