E. Ria Tzimas

Following a prior costs endorsement, it came to the court's attention that the moving party had renewed an original motion for additional disclosure that had not been brought to the court's attention due to filing irregularities.

The court reviewed its prior costs order and limited the cost award to the sum associated with fake case references, staying the balance of the costs order pending a scheduled in-person hearing on the renewed motion.

The moving party defendants in a multi-defendant civil action brought a motion for dismissal of the action against them without costs.

The plaintiff municipality had settled the action with the moving parties.

Having regard to the consents filed, the unopposed defendants, and the defendants who had not responded despite being duly served, the court granted the motion and issued an order in accordance with the draft order filed.

The plaintiff municipality brought a motion to strike the statements of defence filed by the self-represented defendants in two related fraud actions.

The court reviewed the motion materials and the responding party's correspondence, then set a schedule for responding materials, reply, and oral submissions rather than deciding the motion on the written record alone.

The responding parties were given until April 7, 2026 to file responding materials, with reply due April 17, 2026 and oral submissions scheduled for April 24, 2026.

Following the adjournment of the self-represented respondent's motion on a prior hearing date due to improper conduct — specifically the submission of fabricated legal authorities and misrepresentations to the court — the court fixed costs on a substantial indemnity basis for costs thrown away.

The self-represented respondent disputed the quantum, arguing costs should not exceed approximately $1,100.

The court found the respondent's submissions unconvincing and highlighted his failure to show remorse, his continued misrepresentations, and his abandonment of the renewed motion.

Costs were fixed at $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, representing both the costs of responding to the flawed factum and the totality of the responding party's efforts.

The Regional Municipality of Halton brought four consolidated actions against multiple defendants alleging fraud and conspiracy.

The court heard three motions: (1) the Ohashi defendants' motion to disqualify Edward Nagel as Halton's representative at examinations for discovery, which was dismissed in its entirety with costs; (2) David Allan Norris's motion for full and timely documentary disclosure, which was allowed in part without costs, with specific directions regarding production of financial statements, audit reports, emails, and other documents; and (3) Marion Rewa's motion, which was adjourned with costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to Rewa's submission of non-existent case citations and fictitious legal propositions in his factum.

The court also addressed housekeeping matters related to scheduling of examinations for discovery.

This decision follows an uncontested trial regarding the residency, decision-making, and parenting time for two children wrongfully removed from Ontario to Lebanon by the respondent, Luna Mounir Andraos.

The court confirms final orders for the children to reside with the applicant, Amin Joseph Barakat, who is granted sole decision-making responsibility, and for the respondent to have only supervised parenting time.

The court also addresses the respondent’s ongoing defiance of previous orders and awards costs for the uncontested trial.

This costs endorsement addresses two motions brought by the Respondent, both dismissed with costs awarded to the Applicant.

The first motion challenged the court's jurisdiction over property claims, and the second sought leave to appeal an arbitrator’s email communication.

The court reviews the guiding legal principles for costs in family law, including reasonableness, proportionality, and bad faith.

The Applicant was awarded $48,500 for the jurisdiction motion and $16,500 for the leave motion, both payable within 30 days.

This costs endorsement addresses the appropriate quantum of costs following a motor vehicle accident trial in which the plaintiff was awarded damages by the jury, but the award was reduced to zero by operation of the Insurance Act.

The defendant sought $269,264.87 in costs, later reducing the request to $230,000.

The plaintiff argued for a much lower award, citing financial hardship and litigation conduct.

The court fixed costs at $185,000, finding the defendant entitled to costs but reducing the amount for duplication, lack of particulars, and proportionality.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's summary judgment motion in a commercial lease dispute, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial.

The case involved allegations of breach of lease, wrongful termination, and repudiation, with significant evidentiary and credibility concerns due to the passing of a key witness.

The court found the evidentiary record insufficient for summary judgment and awarded costs to the defendants.

The Appellant sought leave to appeal an arbitrator's email explanation regarding the costs of translating French documents to English, alleging an error of law and bias.

The Respondent opposed, arguing the motion was out of time, the right to appeal was misstated, the Appellant had consented to translations, there was no error of law, and no bias.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no right of appeal for an explanation note, no error of law by the arbitrator on a question not put to him, and that the arbitration agreement limited appeals to questions of law, which this was not.

The court also found no evidence of bias.

K.W. was found guilty of two counts of invitation to sexual touching and two counts of sexual interference against his girlfriend's sister, B.B., over a four-year period starting when B.B. was eleven.

The Crown requested an 8.5-year global custodial term, while the Defence sought 4 years.

The court found the Crown's proposed term disproportionate and the Defence's term insufficient.

Considering aggravating factors such as abuse of trust, predatory behavior, and victim impact, balanced against mitigating factors like employment, family support, and background hardships, the court imposed a global custodial sentence of 5 years, with all counts served concurrently.

Ancillary orders were also issued with a variation for K.W.'s own children.

This endorsement addresses the school placement of a child, M.T., and associated costs, following a prior court order.

Despite a directive to obtain a Voice of the Child Report, both parties failed to do so proactively.

The court deemed inadmissible additional evidence submitted by both parties that went beyond the scope of the requested information.

Relying primarily on M.T.'s Report Card, the court found credible the applicant's concerns regarding the child's social integration, academic challenges in mathematics, and the detrimental impact of a lengthy daily commute.

Consequently, the court determined it was in M.T.'s best interests to return to her former school, Ingleborough Public School.

On the issue of costs, the court found mixed success for the applicant, noting her incomplete evidentiary foundation and limited proactivity, and fixed costs at $8,000, payable partially immediately and the remainder from the respondent's share of matrimonial home proceeds.

The Applicant brought a motion seeking orders for their daughter, M.T., to return to her former school, Ingleborough Public School, and for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home.

The Respondent opposed both requests, preferring M.T. to remain at Havergal College and seeking more time to buy out the Applicant's share of the home.

The court deferred a final decision on M.T.'s schooling, ordering a Voice of the Child Report to ascertain her wishes, and temporarily directed M.T. to continue at Havergal.

Regarding the matrimonial home, the court ordered its sale, finding the Respondent's delay unjustified, and set out a detailed process for cooperation, including selecting a real estate agent and developing future housing plans, with a portion of sale proceeds to be held in trust pending equalization.

Costs were reserved for the schooling issue and not awarded for the home sale due to divided success.

The offender, D.F., was sentenced for sexual assault, sexual interference, and breach of a probation order involving a 14-year-old complainant.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 6 to 8 years, while the Defence proposed 3 to 4 years.

The court considered significant aggravating factors, including the complainant's vulnerability, the use of force, the offender's extensive criminal record, and his disregard for court orders.

Mitigating factors included the offender's own childhood trauma, delays in the sentencing process, stringent bail conditions, and demonstrated remorse.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for sexual offenses against children.

D.F. was sentenced to 5 years, 6 months, and 5 days for sexual interference (sexual assault stayed), plus 30 days concurrent for the probation breach, along with various ancillary orders.

This endorsement addresses costs for an eight-day family law trial concerning primary residence, parenting time, decision-making, child support, s.7 expenses, and equalization.

The trial results were mixed, with the Applicant largely successful on some issues and the Respondent on others.

The court found that both parties contributed significantly to the excessive length of the trial through entrenched positions, failure to narrow issues, and inefficient presentation of evidence.

Despite offers to settle being similar to the ultimate trial outcomes, the parties failed to resolve their differences.

Consequently, the court determined that success was divided and neither party should be rewarded for their litigation conduct, ordering each party to bear their own costs.

M.C. was found guilty of accessing child pornography.

The Crown sought an 18-month custodial sentence, while the Defence proposed an 18-month conditional sentence.

The court considered significant mitigating factors, including M.C.'s history as a victim of childhood sexual trauma, extensive ongoing counselling, recovery from substance addiction, and strong family support.

The judge found M.C.'s cumulative circumstances to be exceptional, concluding that a custodial sentence would be highly problematic as it could interrupt his rehabilitation and risk relapse, thereby undermining the objectives of deterrence and denunciation.

An 18-month conditional sentence was imposed, followed by 18 months probation, along with ancillary orders (DNA, SOIRA for 20 years, and a s.161 order for 10 years), with strict conditions designed to ensure continued therapy and community safety.

The accused, N.B., was charged with sexual assault, exposing his genital organs to a person under 16, and sexual assault and touching for a sexual purpose on the same complainant, A.W. N.B. pleaded not guilty and testified, denying the allegations.

The Crown argued that A.W.'s testimony was unshaken and corroborated.

The court found N.B. not credible but also identified significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the Crown's evidence, particularly A.W.'s account and the corroborating witnesses.

The court concluded that while "something bad" may have happened to A.W., the evidence was insufficient and unreliable to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

N.B. was found not guilty on all counts.

The Applicant brought an urgent motion to vary a Preservation and Non-Dissipating Order to permit the purchase of three pharmacies and the sale of two others, proposing to hold net proceeds in trust.

The Respondent opposed, arguing that the Applicant's financial disclosure was inadequate and that varying the order would prejudice her claims for equalization, child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion, finding that the Applicant had not provided sufficient security to meet anticipated obligations due to significant discrepancies and inconsistencies in his financial disclosures regarding net worth, income, and asset leveraging.

The court emphasized the need for full transparency to assess the magnitude of the Respondent's claims and the Applicant's ability to satisfy them.

The plaintiff, PCNIX Inc., brought a motion seeking a declaration that a default judgment obtained against the defendants, TECPARTNER Inc. and Edwin Masango, survived Masango's bankruptcy under sections 178(1)(d) and (e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the original statement of claim and the trial judge's findings did not contain sufficient factual allegations of fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation, defalcation, false pretenses, or fraudulent misrepresentation to bring the debt within the purview of the specified BIA sections.

The court emphasized that for a debt to survive bankruptcy, the underlying pleadings must contain specific factual particulars, even if fraud is not explicitly pleaded as a cause of action.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges of impaired operation and excess blood alcohol.

The trial judge had found breaches of the respondent's s.10(a) and s.10(b) Charter rights, leading to the exclusion of breath samples and acquittal.

The appeal court found no s.10(a) breach but upheld the trial judge's finding of a s.10(b) Charter breach, agreeing with the assessment of "flagrant disrespect" by the police.

Consequently, the appeal court affirmed the trial judge's decision to exclude the breath sample evidence under s.24(2) of the Charter and upheld the acquittal.