Rose Anne Faddoul

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a motion to appoint a litigation guardian for an incapable party in family proceedings.

The court found that the motion itself was largely unnecessary, as the proposed litigation guardian already held a power of attorney with express authority.

Both parties engaged in unreasonable and irrelevant litigation conduct, focusing on personal allegations rather than the core issue, which significantly inflated the costs.

The court awarded a substantially reduced amount of costs to the applicant, reflecting only the necessary portion of the litigation, and directed the litigation guardian to seek court approval for legal accounts before recovering from the incapable person's estate.

The appellant, Leslie Watson, moved to review and set aside a prior order from a Motion Judge that required her to provide $15,000 in security for costs for her appeal.

The original security for costs order was based on Rule 61.06(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding good reason to believe the appeal was frivolous and vexatious and that the appellant lacked sufficient assets to pay costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's motion, affirming the Motion Judge's application of the test and assessment of the overall justice of the case, and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of $5,000 for the motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend her Statement of Claim, while the defendant brought a motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the plaintiff's action challenging the validity of a Will.

The plaintiff alleged lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, and suspicious circumstances regarding the Will, which excluded her from the estate.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the defendant, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiff's evidence was deemed uncorroborated and outweighed by credible independent evidence from the defence.

In the alternative, had summary judgment not been granted, the court would have allowed the plaintiff to amend her pleadings (to add a party), struck irrelevant portions of her pleadings, and ordered her to post $45,000 as security for costs due to the low chance of success and her impecuniosity.

The defendant was awarded $15,000 in costs.

This endorsement addresses costs arising from several contentious family law proceedings, including a motion to reinstate counsel, a motion to change a final order, and a 10-day trial.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, considering the success of each party, their litigation conduct, and the importance and complexity of the issues.

The applicant was largely successful across the various stages, although his conduct was noted as unreasonable in some instances.

The respondent's counsel was held personally liable for costs due to a missed court appearance.

The court fixed specific cost awards for each stage, emphasizing proportionality and reasonableness.

The plaintiff, OZ Merchandising Inc., sought to defer the determination of costs following the dismissal of its claims against the Eastern Ontario District Soccer Association (EODSA), The Ontario Soccer Association (OSA), and the Canadian Soccer Association (CSA).

The plaintiff also argued for a Bullock or Sanderson order and partial indemnity costs.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's requests, finding no basis to defer costs pending appeal or resolution of claims against other defendants.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the successful defendants from the date of their offers to settle, citing the plaintiff's egregious litigation conduct and the pursuit of unfounded allegations.

Additionally, the court found Omur Sezerman, a non-party, jointly and severally liable with the plaintiff for the trial costs due to his direct control over counsel and conduct undermining the administration of justice.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child support, seeking imputation of $200,000 income to the respondent, increased life insurance, disclosure orders, and costs.

The respondent, claiming unemployment and disability, opposed the imputation and other requests.

The court imputed an income of $74,977 to the respondent, ordered child support of $700 per month, and a 67/33 split for section 7 expenses.

The existing $100,000 life insurance policy was maintained, and the respondent was ordered to provide outstanding disclosure.

Costs for previous conferences were fixed at $10,000, to be apportioned by the trial judge, and the applicant was awarded $5,000 in costs for the motion.

The applicant sought to terminate or reduce his spousal support obligation under a separation agreement dated June 20, 2003, citing two material changes in circumstances: his early retirement from employment and the respondent's increased income.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought continuation of support at the original amount.

The court found that while the applicant's early retirement constituted a material change in circumstances based on the loss of extended health benefits, the applicant's voluntary decision to retire early did not justify full termination of support.

The court reduced spousal support in stages to reflect the applicant's reduced income while recognizing the respondent's ongoing need and the compensatory nature of the support obligation.