Superior Court of Justice

The respondent sought costs of $4,898.55 on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully defeating the applicant's motion for the trial judge's recusal.

The applicant, a self-represented mother, claimed an inability to pay.

The court noted significant deficiencies in the respondent's bill of costs, including a failure to break down hours spent specifically on the recusal motion.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court fixed costs at $600 payable by the applicant to the respondent.

The applicant sought leave to proceed with an uncontested trial in writing to assess damages against the respondent for breach of fiduciary duty.

The respondent had previously been held in contempt for failing to pass his accounts and had failed to pay a costs order before passing away.

The court granted the applicant leave to proceed under Rule 57.03(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, dispensing with the requirement for an order to continue under Rule 11, as the respondent's beneficiaries declined to administer his insolvent estate.

The plaintiff flooring contractor sued the defendant general contractor for unpaid invoices relating to the installation of a concrete urethane floor in a brewery.

The general contractor counterclaimed and brought separate actions against the flooring subcontractors and the product manufacturer, alleging the floor was negligently installed and defective.

The court found that the alleged defects were cosmetic and resulted from the general contractor's decision to substitute a cheaper flooring product without the designer's approval, as well as poor maintenance by the brewery.

The court granted the plaintiff's claim for unpaid invoices and dismissed the general contractor's counterclaim and third-party actions.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside portions of a final order made on an uncontested basis, alleging the applicant obtained the order by fraud.

The court found the respondent failed to establish that the applicant made false or misleading statements, and failed to satisfy the factors for setting aside a default order, noting his failure to participate in the proceedings.

The motion was dismissed, except for a minor rectification to correct a mistake in the equalization payment amount.

The respondent father brought a motion alleging the applicant mother breached a previous trial decision regarding family therapy, information sharing, and parenting time.

The father sought financial penalties and further directions on therapy protocols.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the mother was in compliance with the trial decision and that the father was attempting to re-litigate trial issues.

The mother was awarded full indemnity costs.

The moving parties filed a supplementary motion record and revised draft order following a previous endorsement that noted deficiencies in their materials.

The court found the new materials remained deficient, citing incomplete documents, missing schedules, duplicate email authorizations, and spelling errors.

The court declined to grant the requested relief but provided the moving parties one final opportunity to file a proper and complete consent and draft order.

The Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy opposed the Licensed Insolvency Trustee's Statement of Receipts and Disbursements, seeking a $3,000 reduction in fees due to significant delays and misconduct in administering the estate over 18 years.

The court found the trustee's conduct resulted in irresponsible decisions, unnecessary services, and a failure to properly report to the court, causing the bankrupt to remain undischarged for 17 years.

Applying the Hess principles, the court granted the requested $3,000 reduction, reducing the trustee's fees to $17,000.

The applicant, acting as guardian of property for her incapable spouse, brought an application to pass her accounts.

The Public Guardian and Trustee objected to several categories of expenses, including unsupported expenses for the sale of a property, unknown credit card payments and transfers from a joint account, pre-guardianship medical expenses, and past legal fees.

The court found that the applicant breached her fiduciary duty by failing to provide vouchers for many expenses and commingling funds.

The applicant was ordered to reimburse the incapable person's estate for the unsupported expenses and transfers, though she was permitted a partial set-off for expenses incurred in Greece immediately following the spouse's accident.

The applicant was also ordered to pay costs personally.

The applicant brought an urgent motion to preserve assets pending equalization of net family property, alleging the respondent and his mother breached a consent order by encumbering a property and listing it for sale.

The court found no breach of the consent order as the charge was registered minutes before the order was made.

The court declined to order mortgage funds be paid into court but ordered an accounting of the funds, restricted the alienation of the property without notice, and directed that 50% of the respondent's project management fees be remitted to the Family Responsibility Office for support arrears.

The court reviewed the Claims Administration Report submitted by RicePoint Administration Inc. regarding the distribution of settlement funds in a class action.

The report detailed the distribution of $550,033.00, including payments to class counsel, the Class Proceeding Fund, the representative plaintiff, and 53 approved class members, with the residual balance directed to the Canadian Red Cross.

The court approved the report pursuant to s. 27.1(17) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The defendant successfully obtained summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's $2.2 million defamation claim and sought partial indemnity costs of $8,836.76.

The plaintiff opposed the costs award, arguing that the defendant used salaried in-house counsel and that a costs award would have a chilling effect, while also requesting a sealing order in her costs submissions.

The court dismissed the sealing order request for failing to follow proper procedure.

The court awarded the defendant its requested costs, confirming that in-house lawyers are entitled to seek costs on an equal basis to external lawyers and finding the amount reasonable and proportionate.

The plaintiff son brought an action to set aside an agreement to transfer his house to his defendant father and stepmother, claiming he signed it under duress.

The defendants counterclaimed for specific performance of the agreement.

The court found the plaintiff was not a credible witness and dismissed the claim of duress, holding the agreement was valid and enforceable.

However, the court declined to order specific performance, finding the property was not unique to the defendants and damages were an adequate remedy.

The defendants were awarded $48,384.72 in damages for loans, rent, and property expenses, and were ordered to vacate the premises within six months.

The plaintiff brought an unopposed motion to certify the proceeding as a class action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The action alleges that the defendant improperly paid trailing commissions to discount brokers out of mutual fund assets.

The court found that all certification criteria were met, relying on previous decisions in similar cases, and granted the certification order.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for the return of the parties' child to Ontario and disclosure of her address.

The respondent mother had taken the child to Mauritius, agreed to return her to Canada in a Hague Convention proceeding, but instead unilaterally relocated to Alberta.

The mother brought a cross-motion arguing Alberta was the proper jurisdiction.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act because the child's habitual residence remained in Ontario, as she was removed without consent and the father did not acquiesce.

The court ordered a Case Conference to determine the next steps.

Following the dismissal of the parents' appeal in a child protection matter, the successful Society sought costs.

The parents argued that costs should not be awarded in child welfare proceedings and that they acted in good faith.

The court found that the parents engaged in bad faith litigation by making baseless allegations of professional misconduct, racism, and collusion against the Society's counsel and the court.

To express disapproval of this reprehensible conduct, the court awarded the Society substantial indemnity costs fixed at $44,703.60.

The accused, charged with sexual offences against minors, brought an application during his re-trial to admit evidence that he had offered to take a polygraph test when confronted with the allegations.

A similar application had been dismissed during his first trial, which ended in a mistrial.

The court held that the accused failed to rebut the presumption under section 653.1 of the Criminal Code that the prior ruling was binding.

Furthermore, the court found that the offer to take a polygraph was inadmissible as it was not a spontaneous utterance, had marginal probative value, and its admission would be highly prejudicial to the fairness of the trial.

Following a motion where the court ordered a child returned to Ontario after the father's unauthorized relocation to New Brunswick, the kin caregiver sought costs against the father and the Children's Aid Society.

The court found the father's conduct unreasonable and the Society's failure to properly assess the relocation plan and file required evidence irresponsible.

The court ordered the father and the Society to each pay $5,000 in costs, and held them jointly and severally liable for $2,349.15 in travel costs incurred by the kin caregiver to retrieve the child.

The self-represented plaintiff brought motions seeking to enforce a prior production order against a non-party, Sciex, and for leave to examine three former Sciex employees and the defendant's wife for discovery.

The court dismissed the motion for production, finding that Sciex had complied with the order and could not produce documents that did not exist.

The court also dismissed the motions for leave to examine the non-parties, concluding that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 31.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly as she had already obtained the relevant information from other sources and it would not be unfair to require her to proceed to trial without the examinations.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking a 2/2/5/5 shared parenting schedule for the parties' two children.

The applicant mother opposed and brought a cross-motion for a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court found that the eldest child was exhibiting emotional and behavioural issues following the separation, and there were documented concerns from the Children's Aid Society regarding the father's behaviour.

Applying the Glick factors, the court concluded a section 30 assessment was in the children's best interests and ordered the father to pay the upfront costs.

The father's motion for a shared parenting schedule was dismissed, with leave to renew after the assessment, though the interim schedule was slightly modified to reduce transitions.

At a case conference, the applicant mother sought temporary orders for sole decision-making, child support, and spousal support.

The respondent father did not file a brief or attend.

The court interpreted subrule 17(8) of the Family Law Rules, finding it confers jurisdiction on a case conference judge to grant substantive interim relief, provided notice is given.

The court granted the requested temporary orders, including $7,734 in monthly child support and $12,852 in monthly spousal support, placing the burden on the non-participating father to bring a motion to set the order aside.