Robert D. Hammond

The respondent father moved to set aside a default final order obtained by the applicant mother, which granted her sole custody, supervised access to the father, and ordered child and spousal support.

The father argued he was unable to attend the hearing due to language barriers, delays in obtaining inter-provincial legal aid, and his assigned lawyer's non-attendance.

The court applied Rule 25(19)(e) of the Family Law Rules, finding the father's reasons satisfactory.

The final order was set aside, and the issues of jurisdiction, custody, and access were adjourned for a full hearing.

The appellant failed to comply with a security for costs order.

The respondent requested that the appeal be dismissed for non-compliance, and the appellant did not oppose.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on consent.

The respondent on appeal brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 61.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The underlying dispute involved a claim by the appellant that he had an ownership interest in a property purchased by his former mother-in-law.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's claim, finding his evidence not credible.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion for security for costs, finding good reason to believe the appeal was frivolous and vexatious and that the appellant had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay the costs of the appeal.

The appellant was ordered to post $15,000 as security.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim asserting a compensable interest in property owned by the defendant, the court determined the defendant’s entitlement to costs.

The defendant relied on two offers to settle, including one that remained open until trial and was more favourable than the final result, entitling her to enhanced cost recovery.

The court considered the Rules of Civil Procedure factors, the reasonableness of counsel’s hourly rate, and the lack of clear separation between partial and substantial indemnity claims.

Balancing these considerations, the court fixed costs at a reduced amount from what was sought.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, an advance on equalization, and disclosure.

The court imputed additional income to the respondent under sections 18 and 19 of the Child Support Guidelines, finding that his employer paid personal expenses and that he had access to dividend income from a holding company despite an alleged estate freeze.

The court set the respondent's income at $180,000 and ordered interim child support, spousal support, and a $30,000 advance on equalization to allow the applicant to fund the litigation.

The plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership interest in a house legally owned by his former mother-in-law, arguing either an express agreement that title would transfer after the mortgage was paid or, alternatively, proprietary estoppel.

The court rejected the plaintiff's account of any promise to gift the down payment or transfer the property, preferring the evidence that the arrangement was a rental investment intended to provide favourable housing to family members.

Applying the elements of proprietary estoppel, the court found no inducement or encouragement by the owner, insufficient proof of detriment in light of below-market rent and other countervailing benefits, and no unconscionable conduct.

The action was dismissed, the parties were declared to stand in a landlord-tenant relationship, and judgment for unpaid rent was granted to the defendant.