Ronald M. Laliberte Jr.

Following a family law motion concerning custody, child support, and child support arrears, the court was asked to determine entitlement to costs.

Both parties had made settlement offers and engaged in resolution discussions prior to the hearing.

The court reviewed the principles governing costs under the Family Law Rules, including the presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs and the factors relevant to determining reasonableness and proportionality.

Considering the relative success of the parties and their conduct during the proceedings, the court found that neither party was clearly more successful and both acted reasonably in pursuing their positions.

The accused brought a pre‑trial Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence obtained after their arrests for alleged human smuggling and related conspiracy offences under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and Criminal Code.

They argued the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest them, rendering the detention arbitrary under s. 9 of the Charter and the subsequent searches unreasonable under s. 8.

The court held that the directing officer possessed both subjective and objectively reasonable grounds based on the totality of the circumstances, including information from U.S. authorities, phone records linking smugglers to a Cornwall residence, and surveillance of a Toronto‑registered vehicle connected to that address.

The arrests were therefore lawful.

In any event, the court held the evidence would not have been excluded under s. 24(2) because the officers acted in good faith and the evidence was reliable and essential to prosecuting a serious human‑smuggling offence.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal of his family law application under Rule 39(12) of the Family Law Rules and sought to revive claims for spousal support and unjust enrichment arising from a long-term cohabitation relationship.

The court considered the framework for setting aside administrative dismissals, including the explanation for delay, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the responding party.

The court found the applicant had repeatedly failed to comply with prior court orders and disclosure undertakings, had delayed in bringing the motion, and had not demonstrated a compelling underlying claim.

Significant prejudice to the respondent was also established due to legal costs and reliance on the dismissal.

Balancing the relevant factors, the court refused to set aside the clerk’s dismissal order and confirmed that the proceeding remained dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to $70,118.32 in surplus proceeds from a municipal tax sale of five lots it previously owned and transferred to the respondent.

The applicant claimed priority over the respondent owner based on an unregistered vendor take-back mortgage and equitable principles of vendor's lien and unjust enrichment.

The court found that the parties intended to secure the unpaid purchase price with a mortgage, which was not a demand mortgage but contingent on the sale of the lots, meaning the limitation period had not expired.

The court also found the applicant had a valid vendor's lien and that the respondent would be unjustly enriched if allowed to keep the proceeds.

The surplus funds were ordered paid to the applicant.

A municipality sought a costs award of approximately $93,000 in relation to an application concerning enforcement orders under the Building Code Act, 1992 tied to the conversion of a former school into a retirement residence.

The application had not been finally adjudicated and most issues appeared to have been resolved without substantive judicial determination after the eventual issuance of a building permit.

The court held that entitlement to costs requires findings regarding success and the parties’ conduct, which were absent due to the lack of adjudication on the merits and limited judicial involvement.

Given the possibility that the matter resolved through compromise and the absence of clear success by either party, the court declined to exercise its discretion to award costs.

The municipality’s motion for costs was therefore dismissed.

Following reasons for judgment in a family law variation proceeding, the court was asked to determine costs.

The respondent to the original application sought costs exceeding $34,000, relying on relative success and prior offers to settle.

The court reviewed the governing framework under the Family Law Rules, including Rules 18 and 24, and considered relative success, settlement offers, conduct of the parties, and ability to pay.

Although the respondent achieved greater success overall, the court found both parties had partial success and had acted reasonably.

Given the responding party’s limited financial means and significant indebtedness, the court declined to award costs.

The moving party (former husband) brought a motion to vary a 2003 spousal support order due to a reduction in his income after changing employment.

The responding party (former wife) opposed and sought retroactive post-secondary expenses for their adult child.

The court found the moving party's income reduction from an average of $420,303 to $270,153 constituted a material change in circumstances.

Spousal support was varied from $7,000 to $5,850 per month, retroactive to January 2010, resulting in $46,750 in arrears owed to the responding party.

The court also ordered the moving party to pay $43,598, representing his 65% proportionate share of the child's reasonable retroactive post-secondary expenses.

The respondent brought a motion to vary a prior spousal support order, seeking a retroactive reduction based on his retirement from employment.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing the retirement was voluntary and premature, that the payor was in arrears, and that disclosure deficiencies warranted dismissal of the motion.

The court held that retirement constituted a material change in circumstances contemplated by the parties’ settlement agreement and incorporated into the original order.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and the principles governing variation under s. 17 of the Divorce Act, the court recalculated support based on the payor’s reduced income after retirement.

The support obligation was significantly reduced and arrears were recalculated accordingly.

The respondent mother opposed enforcement of Minutes of Settlement that granted the father unsupervised weekend access to a young child.

The father sought a court order enforcing the agreement, arguing the mother had to establish a material change in circumstances.

The court held that where custody and access terms arise from an agreement not incorporated into a court order, the proper framework is the child’s best interests rather than a material change analysis.

Considering concerns about the father’s alleged drug involvement, lack of recent contact with the child, and safety issues, the court found the agreement was not presently in the child’s best interests.

The court granted the mother custody and ordered the father to have supervised access pending further investigation.

Following a motion to change child support based on an alleged material change in circumstances, the court determined costs after releasing the underlying judgment.

The respondent father had sought termination or suspension of child support and relief from arrears, while the applicant mother sought imputation of income, enforcement mechanisms, and security for child support.

The court found that both parties achieved some success but that the overall result favoured the applicant mother because the father obtained only limited relief and the court granted security for child support through a lien on his property.

The court also considered the parties’ conduct, the absence of meaningful settlement offers, and the importance of enforcing a child’s right to support.

Balancing the Family Law Rules factors and the parties’ financial circumstances, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the applicant.

A support payor brought a motion to change seeking termination or suspension of child support following a motor vehicle accident that aggravated a shoulder injury and allegedly prevented employment.

The court found the accident constituted a material change in circumstances under s. 17 of the Divorce Act but concluded the payor remained intentionally under‑employed for much of the period after the accident.

The court granted a six‑month grace period suspending child support but maintained the previously imputed income and reinstated ongoing support thereafter.

Arrears were fixed and security was granted through a lien registered against the payor’s real property.

Requests to vest the property in the recipient and to restrict future motions were denied as disproportionate or unsupported.

The respondent sought leave to proceed with a Motion to Change concerning custody and child support after the court had previously ordered that he could not bring further motions without permission.

The court examined whether the proposed motion constituted an abuse of process and whether there was any merit justifying leave to litigate.

Applying the material change test for variation of family law orders, the court found some evidence suggesting a change in residence of one child and a change in the respondent’s employment circumstances, which could affect child support.

However, the court found no material change warranting reconsideration of custody and concluded that repeated filings using identical materials indicated no new circumstances.

Leave was granted only on the issue of child support, while leave regarding custody and equalization issues was denied.

Following a motion addressing temporary parenting arrangements for a young child, the court was asked to determine the issue of costs.

The respondent mother sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing she was the successful party on custody, access conditions, appointment of the Children’s Lawyer, child support, and disclosure.

The applicant father argued that both parties had partial success and that any costs should be offset against alleged withdrawals from a joint account or deferred until the conclusion of the proceeding.

The court found the respondent was the substantially successful party but noted the applicant achieved limited success on access and information rights.

Applying the Family Law Rules and considering fairness and proportionality, the court awarded reduced costs.

Following a decision on a motion to change concerning child support, the court determined costs under the Family Law Rules.

Although both parties achieved partial success on certain issues, the court found the applicant was substantially more successful because the litigation secured child support arrears and ongoing support for the children.

The court also considered the respondent’s conduct, including unilaterally ceasing child support payments and failing to provide financial disclosure without litigation.

Applying Rule 24 and the principles governing costs in family law proceedings, the court concluded the applicant was entitled to partial indemnity costs.

The respondent was ordered to pay $6,500 in costs.

A child protection proceeding concerning a temporary care and custody order under s. 51 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The child had been apprehended following concerns about exposure to ongoing high-conflict family dynamics, violence between adults, and allegations of sexual misconduct within the family.

Multiple relatives sought custody or supervision arrangements, while the children's aid society sought continued custody with discretionary access.

The court found credible evidence establishing reasonable grounds to believe the child would likely suffer emotional harm if returned to the prior family environment.

Concluding that supervision conditions would not adequately protect the child given the intensity of conflict and credibility concerns, the court ordered that temporary care and custody remain with the society.

The applicant brought a motion to change a separation agreement to adjust child support retroactively and prospectively.

The court found a material change in circumstances arising from the parties' transition to a shared parenting arrangement.

However, the court declined to revisit historical support payments between 2008 and 2011 because the parties had managed child support adjustments privately under their agreement.

The court ordered retroactive child support for 2012 after the respondent unilaterally stopped paying support and set ongoing set-off support based on the parties’ incomes.

The court refused to impute additional income from corporate expenses and retained earnings due to insufficient evidence.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for failing or refusing to provide a breath sample under s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

He argued the trial judge erred by failing to address an alleged arbitrary detention contrary to s. 9 of the Charter and by failing to consider relevant evidence regarding the mens rea for the offence.

The appeal court held that the evidentiary record did not establish a prima facie Charter breach that would trigger a duty on the trial judge to inquire into a potential violation.

The officer had lawfully approached the appellant who was sitting in a parked vehicle in a public parking area and therefore no detention arose prior to the breath demand.

The court also found the trial judge’s reasons adequately demonstrated consideration of the evidence and explained the rejection of the appellant’s explanation for failing to provide a sample.