Robert Stead

The Kenora Rainy River District Child and Family Services brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a further six-month Society Wardship Order for two children found to be in need of protection due to emotional harm.

The children had been apprehended in October 2014 due to mental health concerns including self-mutilation and suicide ideation.

They were placed in a specialized treatment foster home in Southern Ontario where they demonstrated significant improvement.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking return of the children to her care, but provided no clinical evidence or cooperation with the Agency.

The father agreed with the Agency's position and was noted in default.

The court found no genuine issue requiring trial and granted the Society Wardship Order for six months, finding that the children's best interests required continuation of their specialized placement.

Following a trial concerning a passing of accounts relating to the estate of a deceased person, the successful objector sought over $87,000 in costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court emphasized that costs are discretionary and guided by proportionality under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although the objector had succeeded in requiring repayment of $10,000 and a reduction in compensation claimed by the estate trustee, the court found the requested costs grossly disproportionate to the amounts at issue and the manner in which the litigation was conducted.

The proceedings involved limited witnesses, no discoveries, and inefficiencies arising from personal family disputes.

The court therefore fixed modest costs to reflect proportionality and the limited financial stakes of the litigation.

Application concerning the passing of accounts of an attorney acting under a continuing power of attorney for property under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The attorney transferred substantial funds from the incapable person's accounts into a personal PayPal account, failed to maintain proper accounting records as required by regulation, and used estate funds to pay for personal expenses, claiming them as compensation.

The court found several breaches of statutory duties, including inadequate record-keeping and improper methods of taking compensation, though the incapable person's financial well-being was not materially harmed.

Exercising its discretion on a passing of accounts, the court reduced the attorney’s compensation and ordered repayment of a portion of the funds taken.

The attorney was required to repay $10,000 to the estate while the accounts were otherwise passed.

Following a family law mobility trial where the applicant father was successful in having the children reside primarily with him, he sought costs of $77,664.53 based on an offer to settle.

The respondent mother, who had limited financial means, argued for no costs or a nominal amount.

The court declined to apply the strict costs consequences of the offer to settle, noting the difficult nature of mobility cases and the reasonableness of both parties' positions.

Considering the respondent's modest means and the costs she would incur to exercise access, the court fixed costs at $15,000 payable to the applicant.

A family law matter involving custody, access, and mobility of a young child born in 2010.

The applicant sought custody, increased access, and DNA testing to establish paternity.

The respondent sought sole custody and child support.

The parties had an on-and-off relationship and were unable to communicate effectively.

The respondent relocated to Alberta with the child without notice during the proceedings.

The court awarded sole custody to the respondent, permitted the relocation to Alberta, and established a phased access schedule for the applicant involving visits to Edmonton and visits when the respondent returns to Ontario.

Following a three‑day family trial addressing spousal support and valuation of a pension for equalization, the court considered costs.

The applicant obtained spousal support and succeeded in part on pension valuation, while the respondent succeeded on certain income findings and other positions, resulting in divided success.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the discretion under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, the court emphasized that costs must remain reasonable and proportionate.

Although both parties achieved partial success, the court found it was necessary for the applicant to bring the proceeding to obtain support and equalization.

The court therefore awarded the applicant reduced costs reflecting the mixed outcome.