Rebecca Ying

This decision concerns costs following a family law trial on parenting issues.

The Applicant Mother was found to have achieved substantial success at trial, having obtained the parenting time and sole decision-making orders she sought, while the Respondent Father's claims of alienation and proposals for shared parenting were rejected.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle and conduct, finding that the Mother's offer did not meet the Rule 18(14) threshold for full indemnity costs due to an unfulfilled condition regarding reunification counseling.

Despite both parties contributing to the conflict and the necessity of trial, the Applicant Mother was awarded partial indemnity costs, adjusted downwards due to high hours claimed and other factors.

In a high-conflict family law dispute ongoing since 2017, the respondent father brought a motion for contempt regarding an interim parenting order, and the applicant mother brought a cross-motion to review the order and for interim child support.

The court refused to grant leave for either party to bring further interim motions, noting the primary objective of the Family Law Rules to deal with cases justly and efficiently.

The court adjourned the motions sine die and directed the parties to proceed to trial on the parenting and child support issues.

The plaintiff, having been wholly successful at a three-day trial, sought costs.

The plaintiff had served a Rule 49 offer to settle that was less than the damages awarded at trial.

The defendants failed to provide costs submissions.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter, totaling $36,102.54.

The court also ordered the release of $23,000 previously paid into court by the plaintiff as security for costs.

A commercial landlord sued a tenant and indemnifier for unpaid rent after the tenant abandoned leased industrial premises before the end of a fixed‑term lease.

The tenant alleged fundamental breach by the landlord based on inadequate security following multiple break‑ins and failure to pay a tenant improvement allowance, and counterclaimed for alleged lost business profits.

The court held the landlord had no contractual obligation to enhance security measures within the tenant’s premises and had fulfilled its obligations under the lease, including payment of the inducement once conditions were met.

The tenant’s abandonment constituted a clear breach of the lease, and the landlord had taken reasonable steps to mitigate its damages by re‑leasing the premises.

The counterclaim for speculative business losses was dismissed for lack of evidentiary support and absence of landlord negligence.