Roger Chown

This endorsement concerns the costs of a prior motion where the respondent sought a pension valuation, which the applicant resisted.

The court had previously ruled in favour of the applicant.

The judge found neither party's position on the underlying motion to be substantially unreasonable.

The decision emphasizes that offers to settle binary issues, where a true compromise is not possible, should not be given significant weight in determining costs.

Despite the applicant achieving a result as favourable as their offer, full indemnity costs were not awarded.

The court found the applicant's counsel dockets reasonable and ordered the respondent to pay $3,250 in all-inclusive costs to the applicant.

This endorsement addresses several outstanding issues following a previous decision, primarily concerning parenting time, shared expenses, and communication.

The court adjusted the father's weekday parenting time to include specific non-overnight periods on Tuesdays and Thursdays when he does not have weekend parenting time, with shared transportation responsibilities.

The court also clarified the sharing of daycare costs, commencing January 1, 2021, and the mother's responsibility for 407 tolls incurred solely for child transportation, acknowledging the impact of her move.

Additionally, the parties were ordered to use the Our Family Wizard app and attend questioning by videoconference.

The court declined to waive the requirement for a case conference before any further motion on parenting time, emphasizing the suitability of case conferences for such scheduling matters.

The applicant, Julie Daly, commenced an application challenging demolition permits and seeking to restrain eviction proceedings, initially naming only the City of Mississauga, but later joined by NYX Tannery Ltd. Daly subsequently abandoned the application.

NYX Tannery Ltd. sought costs for the abandoned application.

Daly brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the costs request and sought a stay of costs pending other tribunal proceedings.

The court dismissed Daly's anti-SLAPP motion, finding that a costs hearing was not a "proceeding" against which an anti-SLAPP motion could be brought in these circumstances, especially as Daly initiated the underlying litigation for her own benefit.

The court also dismissed the request for a stay.

Ultimately, the court awarded costs of $30,000 to NYX Tannery Ltd., considering factors such as Daly's improper opposition to joinder, the complexity of issues, and her impecuniosity, which led to a modest reduction from the requested amount.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to set aside a prior order that removed a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) from a property and to obtain an interim order prohibiting the property's sale, alleging fraud.

The court dismissed the urgent hearing request and the interim order prohibiting sale.

The judge found no new urgency, no newly discovered evidence, and insufficient cogent evidence to support the fraud allegations.

The court also noted the applicant's long-standing non-compliance with a disclosure order and that the prior order already provided for sale proceeds to be held in trust, mitigating irreparable harm.

The balance of the motion was adjourned.

The respondent wife brought a motion seeking an order that the applicant husband provide a completed FSCO Application for Family Law Value for his pension.

The husband resisted the motion on the basis that the wife's claim for equalization was statute-barred and she must first obtain an extension of time under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the pension valuation was not necessary to determine the threshold issue of whether there were 'apparent grounds for relief' for the extension of time, and that ordering disclosure before the limitation issue was decided would run counter to the purpose of the statute.

The plaintiff attended a status hearing ordered by the Court of Appeal to establish a litigation timetable.

The remaining defendant argued the action should be dismissed for delay, citing the plaintiff's failure to advance the litigation since the appeal.

The court found that while the plaintiff's delay was unnecessary, it was not severe enough to warrant dismissal, especially given the defendant's own delay in delivering a statement of defence.

A litigation timetable was ordered.

Following a previous endorsement, the defendant submitted a bill of costs seeking an additional $4,919.11.

The court declined to award the additional costs, noting that while the plaintiff failed to advance the matter for five years, the defendant also sat idle.

The court maintained its previous minimal costs order to avoid encouraging defendants to sit idle during litigation.

The defendant brought a refusals motion in a personal injury action arising from a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff had refused to answer questions or produce records relating to a prior 2003 motor vehicle accident, arguing he had fully recovered and returned to work years before the 2017 accident.

The court held that the 2003 accident and its consequences were relevant to assessing whether the plaintiff was a thin-skull or crumbling-skull plaintiff, and ordered the plaintiff to answer the refused questions.

The defendant insurance broker brought a motion to amend its statement of defence and crossclaim in an action arising from a fire loss where the plaintiff alleged inadequate insurance coverage.

The plaintiff opposed the amendments, arguing they improperly pleaded evidence and argument rather than material facts, contrary to Rule 25.06.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed amendments, which detailed construction costs, statements made in meetings, and gross receipts, were relevant to the broker's causation defence and did not clearly offend the rules of pleading.

The defendants brought a refusals motion arising from the examination for discovery of the plaintiff in a franchise dispute.

The defendants sought answers regarding the plaintiff's prior business experience to test his credibility about whether earnings projections were provided at a crucial meeting.

The court ordered the plaintiff to answer these questions, finding them relevant to what occurred at the meeting.

However, the court upheld the plaintiff's refusals to answer questions regarding discussions with his independent legal advice lawyer, as those questions improperly breached solicitor-client privilege.

The applicant sought interim spousal support retroactive to the date of separation following a 41-year marriage.

The respondent, a self-employed truck driver, claimed his income had significantly declined due to health issues and the pandemic.

The court found the applicant had established a prima facie case for compensatory support.

Due to insufficient financial disclosure and analysis regarding the respondent's business deductions, the court imputed an interim annual income of approximately $79,000 to the respondent.

The court ordered interim spousal support of $1,750 per month, deferred the issue of retroactive support to trial, and ordered the respondent to maintain the applicant on his health benefits and life insurance.

The plaintiff commenced a defamation action against his brother in 2015.

Apart from the exchange of pleadings, no steps were taken for over five years.

At a status hearing, the plaintiff argued the delay was justified by overlapping family estate litigation, his mother's instructions to wait, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court rejected these explanations, finding no evidence of efforts to advance or settle the matter, and inferred the plaintiff had intended to abandon the action until the defendant commenced a separate defamation suit in 2020.

The action was dismissed for delay.

Economical Insurance Company brought a motion to be added as a statutory third party under s. 258(14) of the Insurance Act.

The court granted the request to add Economical as a third party and amend the style of cause.

However, the court declined to grant Economical's requests for orders directing that the coverage issue be determined after the liability trial and that Economical's involvement be kept from the jury, finding such orders premature and better left to the discretion of the trial judge.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an order for the child's habitual residence to be Brampton, while the respondent mother brought a cross-motion for relief related to parenting issues arising from her move to Scarborough, including the child attending school there.

The court determined that it was in the child's best interests to reside primarily with the mother in Scarborough and attend school there.

The decision considered the mother's valid reasons for moving, the unsustainability of her commute from Brampton, and the impracticality of maintaining equal parenting time given the distance and the father's inability to relocate.

The court also ordered that the child attend only one daycare due to the pandemic.

This motion concerned a mobility dispute where the respondent father sought an order for the applicant mother to re-establish residency with the child in Brampton, while the applicant mother sought approval for her relocation to Toronto.

The court, applying the 'best interests of the child' principle and factors from Gordon v Goertz and Plumley v Plumley, found compelling reasons for the mother's move, including childcare and financial benefits.

The court dismissed the father's motion and permitted the child to reside with the mother in Toronto, determining that the relocation was in the child's best interests despite arguments regarding the status quo.

The respondent landlords brought a motion to quash the appellant tenants' appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenants had failed to pay rent for over a year and failed to comply with a prior court order to pay rent pending the appeal.

The court found that the tenants' appeal raised no question of law and was manifestly devoid of merit.

Furthermore, the court held that the appeal was an abuse of process, brought solely to allow the tenants to live rent-free while the court process played out.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, and the stay of proceedings was vacated.

The respondent landlords moved to quash the appellant tenants' appeal from Landlord Tenant Board decisions.

The motion was based on the appeal being out of time (dismissed by a prior judge) and lacking merit as it raised no question of law, and constituted an abuse of process due to the tenants' failure to pay rent and lack of good faith.

The court found no question of law and concluded the appeal was an abuse of process, quashing the appeal and vacating the stay of proceedings.

The accused, L.H., was charged with repeated sexual assault of the complainant during their marriage.

The complainant described four incidents, which the accused denied.

Both parties presented evidence that was generally credible, but the court found minor concerns with the credibility and reliability of both.

Due to diametrically opposed narratives and insufficient corroborating evidence, the court was left in a state of doubt as to which version was true.

Applying the R. v. W.D. test, the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.