Ryan Manilla

This endorsement concerns a costs award following the settlement of a motion to set aside a noting in default and a motion for default judgment.

The parties had resolved the substantive issues, leaving only costs for determination.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $11,961.05, arguing the defendants exhibited a "troubling pattern" of ignoring orders.

The defendants acknowledged some costs were due but disputed the plaintiff's characterization of their conduct and the quantum sought, arguing the plaintiff's response was unduly aggressive.

The court applied the principles from section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the general principles for assessing costs from Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly Canada Inc. The court found the plaintiff's costs excessive, noting the plaintiff's aggressive pursuit of default judgment despite the self-represented defendants' prompt attempts to resolve the matter.

The court awarded the plaintiff $900 plus HST on a partial indemnity basis, finding this amount to be fair, reasonable, and proportionate.

The plaintiff, a suspended and terminated coach member of Athletics Ontario (AO), sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain AO from interfering with his attendance or coaching at sports events not hosted by AO, even if sanctioned by AO.

The court applied the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions from RJR-MacDonald.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a serious issue to be tried regarding AO's alleged unlawful conduct (threats to third parties, calls to police), as his evidence was inadmissible hearsay under Rule 39.01(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Consequently, the motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendants.

The Applicant Mother brought an urgent interim motion seeking permission to remain in South Carolina with the children, having left Canada due to alleged family violence and coercive controlling behaviour by the Respondent Father.

Despite procedural irregularities regarding the formal notice of motion, the court deemed the motion properly before it.

The court considered the serious allegations of abuse, the Applicant's role as primary caregiver, and the children's best interests, particularly in light of the Divorce Act's provisions on family violence and relocation.

The Respondent's denials were found to be minimizations and deflections.

The court extended the temporary order allowing the Applicant and children to remain in South Carolina, finding it unsafe for them to return to Ontario at this time.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding parenting time for their five-year-old daughter.

The mother sought supervised access due to concerns about the father's past aggressive conduct and a recent incident resulting in criminal charges and a no-contact order.

The father sought a return to a previous schedule of unsupervised weekend overnights.

The court found that the father's past conduct raised concerns about aggression and ordered that his parenting time be supervised by the paternal grandparents every other weekend, without overnights, to ensure the child's safety and stability.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an interim parenting order after the respondent father withheld their six-year-old child following a visit.

The mother had previously obtained an ex parte order for the child's immediate return.

The court found compelling reasons to deviate from the pre-separation status quo due to the father's criminal charges, lack of suitable living arrangements, and poor judgment in withholding the child.

The court ordered that the child reside primarily with the mother and granted the father unsupervised daytime parenting time, with no overnight visits until he secures suitable accommodations.

This is a costs decision following a motion regarding temporary parenting arrangements for three children.

The court ordered on June 5, 2020 that the applicant (mother) have temporary custody of the children with defined parenting time for the respondent (father).

The mother sought costs of $3,390 while the father requested costs be limited to $1,200.

The court awarded costs of $2,500 to the mother, payable at $250 per month starting July 1, 2020, taking into account the father's limited financial circumstances and his unreasonable conduct during the proceedings.

The mother and father, parents of three children (ages 9, 7, and 4), brought competing motions for temporary custody and parenting time.

The father had retained the children following an oral agreement to rotate them during the COVID-19 pandemic and refused to return them unless the mother signed a separation agreement.

The court found the mother was the primary caregiver prior to the pandemic, that an oral agreement existed to share parenting time during the pandemic, and that the father's conduct in breaching the agreement and coercing the mother constituted controlling and coercive behavior.

The court granted temporary custody to the mother and ordered the father to have parenting time on alternate weekends commencing June 19, 2020, with a warning that further enforcement proceedings could result in more drastic remedial measures.

This is a costs endorsement following a two-day trial concerning parenting and child support arrangements for a ten-year-old child.

The mother was the successful party, obtaining primary residence and custody with specified access to the father, and securing an increase in child support.

The father's unreasonable conduct throughout the litigation, including failure to comply with disclosure timelines, refusal to participate in a Children's Lawyer investigation, and delay in agreeing to support, influenced the costs award.

The court fixed costs at $15,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $400 per month commencing May 1, 2020.

The court allocated 15% of the costs award as a support order enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

This motion to change involved competing applications by both parents regarding custody, decision-making authority, and parenting time for their 10-year-old daughter.

The mother sought sole custody and changes to the parenting schedule, while the father sought sole custody and increased parenting time.

The court found no material change in circumstances warranting a change in primary residence, but found a material change in circumstances regarding major decision-making due to significantly increased conflict between the parties.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, terminated the joint custody arrangement, and modified the parenting schedule to reduce direct parental engagement while maintaining the father's meaningful relationship with the child.