Richard P. Bowles

This decision addresses costs following a motion to change parenting arrangements, including a proposed relocation of the child, M.B., from Ontario to British Columbia.

The court reviews the parties’ conduct, offers to settle, and financial circumstances, ultimately awarding costs to the successful party, Mr. Bowick, but in an amount reduced for proportionality and ability to pay.

The decision addresses cross-motions to vary interim spousal support and related security obligations following the applicant's retirement.

The court finds a material change in circumstances due to the applicant's retirement and health, reduces spousal support to $1 per month pending trial, and declines to increase life insurance security.

The respondent's motion for retroactive support is dismissed as already decided.

The court sets out a process for any further motion to transfer the proceeding and for trial scheduling.

This was a motion to quash a notice of appeal filed by Edgar Bray.

The underlying litigation involved a commercial lease, where default judgment was granted against Mr. Bray and Triloq Corp. The moving parties argued that no appeal lies to the Court of Appeal from a default judgment because it is not a final order under s. 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court confirmed the interlocutory nature of default judgments, noting that the proper mechanism to challenge such a judgment is a motion to set aside under Rule 19.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion to quash was granted, and the appellant was ordered to pay substantial indemnity costs.

The Applicant sought $150,000 in interim costs but was unsuccessful.

The Respondent then sought costs for that unsuccessful motion.

The court exercised its discretion to defer the determination of costs for the motion to the trial judge.

The decision was based on the lack of a final determination of substantive issues, the narrow scope of the interim costs motion, and a concern that an immediate costs order might impair the Applicant's ability to finance and prepare for trial, particularly regarding expert evidence on the Respondent's financial affairs.

The respondent, a Lieutenant Commander in the Royal Canadian Navy, sought a temporary order to relocate with the three children of the marriage to North York, Ontario, due to a mandatory career development posting.

She also sought temporary sole decision-making authority and permission for the children to obtain passports and travel internationally without the applicant's approval.

The applicant opposed the relocation and the request for sole decision-making.

The court granted the temporary relocation, finding it to be in the children's best interests, particularly given the mother's primary caregiving role and the career implications of refusing the posting.

However, the court denied the request for sole decision-making authority and passport/travel permissions, deeming these issues for trial.

The court also provided guidance for the parties to agree on a revised parenting schedule.

The Applicant sought an interim disbursement costs order of $150,000 to fund financial experts and counsel for an upcoming trial, arguing the Respondent had significant income.

The Respondent claimed financial destitution due to the commercial real estate market downturn.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion, finding she failed to provide sufficient evidence of her inability to fund the litigation from other sources (e.g., family loans) and lacked a detailed breakdown of future costs, as opposed to past expenses.

The court emphasized that interim cost awards are discretionary, limited to exceptional cases, and require clear demonstration of necessity and reasonableness for future litigation expenses.

The Applicant brought a motion seeking permission to amend her application to include claims for constructive trust, intentional infliction of mental suffering and distress, and a restraining order against disseminating compromising videos/photographs.

She also sought an appraisal of an Australian property and further financial disclosure.

The Respondent opposed the motion, arguing delay, bad faith, and lack of merit for the new claims.

The court partially granted the motion, allowing the amendments, vacating the trial date, permitting the appraisal, and ordering specific financial disclosure, including intimate images and personal effects valuation.

The court found the proposed amendments tenable and necessary to avoid duplicative proceedings, despite the Applicant's delay.

The applicant father and respondent mother sought primary residence of their six-year-old child.

The mother, a general surgeon, had relocated to Kapuskasing for employment and sought to have the child reside primarily with her.

The father sought to have the child remain in Renfrew with him.

The court analyzed the best interests of the child under the Children's Law Reform Act, finding the mother to be more attuned to the child's needs and better equipped to support his relationships.

The court ordered that the child's primary residence be with the mother in Kapuskasing, with specified parenting time for the father.

This costs endorsement followed motions regarding interim access.

The mother (respondent) sought costs, relying on an offer to settle.

The court found the outcome of the interim access motions to be more favourable to the mother than her offer, thereby entitling her to costs on a full recovery basis from the date of the offer.

The court fixed the quantum of costs at $12,580, considering factors such as the father's late service of motion materials, the extensive volume of evidence exchanged, and the parties' modest financial means, ensuring the costs award would not impede the father's ability to make child support payments.

This costs endorsement followed a successful motion by the plaintiffs in a landlord-tenant dispute.

The plaintiffs sought approximately $8,200.00 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued for a reduction based on the plaintiffs' pre-motion conduct and their request for post-decision costs.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles from *Boucher*, the court found the plaintiffs' requested costs reasonable, noting comparable billing rates and hours between the parties' counsel.

The court dismissed the defendants' arguments for reduction and ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs $8,200.00 in all-inclusive costs.

The court also confirmed that costs were payable by both corporate and individual defendants.

The father sought to increase interim access to the children, aiming for equal parenting time, while the mother sought to reduce the father's access and requested additional terms regarding parental conduct and the children's dietary restrictions.

The court dismissed both parents' requests to vary the duration of interim access, maintaining the existing schedule from a prior interim agreement.

However, the mother's requests for specific conduct terms, including adherence to dietary restrictions and rules against discussing adult issues with children or disparaging the other parent, were granted.

The court emphasized the children's best interests, the need for stability, and the parties' inability to consistently follow agreed-upon terms due to high conflict.

The moving party sought to lift the stay of proceedings in her former husband's bankruptcy to pursue an equalization claim against his military pension.

Both parties had filed for bankruptcy and been discharged.

The moving party argued the bankrupt concealed his bankruptcy and that her claim was not provable or should survive discharge.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no concealment and applying established law that an equalization claim is a provable claim in bankruptcy that is extinguished upon discharge if not pursued beforehand.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial summary judgment to enforce a personal guarantee executed by the defendant for a $300,000 US loan to a corporation.

The defendant raised the defence of economic duress, arguing he was pressured into signing the guarantee to save the business.

The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issue for trial because the pressure was legitimate commercial pressure and the defendant had subsequently affirmed the guarantee.

The court also awarded pre and post-judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act, despite the guarantee only covering the principal amount.

The applicant sought primary residence and shared decision-making with final authority, and child support.

The respondent sought shared decision-making, equal residential parenting time, and temporary spousal support.

The court granted the applicant primary residence and shared decision-making with final authority, citing the respondent's surveillance activities and threats as reasons for a serious lack of trust and finding his conduct not in the children's best interests.

The respondent's request for equal residential parenting and temporary spousal support was dismissed, with the court finding no serious triable issue to set aside the marriage contract's spousal support waiver under the Miglin test.

Interim child support was ordered, and the issue of section 7 expenses and final child support was deferred.

This endorsement addresses costs following a 35-day trial concerning parenting and financial issues.

The applicant sought substantial costs for a contempt motion and financial issues, while the respondent also claimed costs.

The court awarded the applicant $45,000 in full recovery costs for the contempt motion and $10,000 in partial recovery costs for financial issues, both payable by the respondent.

However, no costs were awarded to either party for the parenting issues due to both parties' limited success and unreasonable litigation conduct.

The court also ordered a reapportionment of supervised access fees, to be paid proportionately to income, finding both parents contributed to its necessity.

The respondent mother brought a motion to suspend a final parenting order that mandated equal time-sharing for the parties' eldest child, A.K.H., with the applicant father.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking dismissal and compliance with the existing order.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to an altercation between A.K.H. and the father, and A.K.H.'s worsening anxiety and consistent refusal to return to the father's care.

Prioritizing A.K.H.'s best interests and expressed wishes, the court suspended the equal time-sharing order, allowing A.K.H. to choose her residential arrangements.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer was appointed to provide ongoing legal representation for both children.

The father brought a motion for disclosure of the mother's and child's cell phone records and devices, alleging the mother was texting the child to sabotage his parenting time.

The court found the request was properly framed under Rule 20(5) of the Family Law Rules.

The court partially granted the motion, ordering limited disclosure of the mother's text messages and Telus records for specific dates, but refused to order production of the child's devices to protect her privacy.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary custody, access, child support, and spousal support.

The parties disputed the respondent's income from his self-employed hair salon business and whether he should have overnight access given allegations of substance abuse.

The court granted the applicant primary care and control of the children and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The respondent was granted conditional access, including overnights, provided he abstains from alcohol and drugs.

Due to insufficient financial disclosure, the court imputed the respondent's income at $100,000 and ordered interim child and spousal support accordingly.

In Part Two of a family law trial, the court determined the remaining property and support issues between the parties.

The court calculated the equalization of net family property, ordering the respondent to pay $54,023.39.

The court also addressed child support, ordering the respondent to pay $237 per month based on a hybrid shared parenting arrangement, and apportioned section 7 expenses.

The applicant was awarded a lump sum of $45,000 in spousal support based on non-compensatory entitlement due to the economic disadvantage arising from the marriage breakdown.

Finally, the court awarded the applicant $8,500 in occupation rent for the respondent's exclusive use of the mortgage-free matrimonial home.

The applicant, James Michael Demers, sought a declaration that a fabric-covered framed structure (boathouse) on his neighbours' property required a building permit from the Township of Killaloe-Hagarty-Richards.

The Township argued the structure was a "tent" exempt from permit requirements and that Demers' application was time-barred as an unappealed CBO decision.

The court found that the Chief Building Official (CBO) had not issued a formal written decision, thus Demers' application was not time-barred.

The court further determined, based on photographic evidence and definitions in the Building Code Act and municipal by-laws, that the structure was a multi-storey, permanent "building" and not a temporary "tent," therefore requiring a building permit.

The application for declaratory relief was granted, and costs were awarded to the applicant on a substantial indemnity basis due to the importance of the issue and the Township's conduct in raising a late limitation period defence.