Self-represented

This endorsement addresses costs and a request for a leave order following motions to change a parenting order.

The applicant father's motion was stayed due to unpaid costs from previous litigation and was subsequently withdrawn.

The respondent mother successfully obtained changes to the parenting order and sought costs for the motions, as well as an order requiring the father to obtain court leave for any future motions.

The court awarded the mother $7,000 in costs, finding the father's conduct unreasonable and noting his history of non-payment.

Furthermore, the court granted the leave order to prevent further abuse of process and protracted litigation, given the father's past behaviour and failure to comply with previous cost orders.

The defendant, S.K., facing sexual assault and sexual exploitation charges, brought a second application for the presiding judge to recuse due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The defendant, self-represented, presented evidence including witness testimony and his own perceptions, arguing that the judge had shown bias against him.

The judge, G.P. Renwick, acknowledged several factors contributing to a reasonable apprehension of bias, including a former counsel's comment about the judge's perceived pro-Crown tendency, the judge's failure to adequately explain procedural matters to the self-represented defendant, and the defendant's genuine belief of bias.

The judge granted the application, recusing himself to ensure the appearance of justice and a fair trial.

Intact Insurance Company brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and for leave to deliver a statement of defence and counterclaim.

The plaintiffs had noted Intact in default without prior notice, despite Intact's counsel having served a notice of intent to defend and requested an indulgence.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct inappropriate, the delay (if any) inconsequential, and no prejudice to the plaintiffs.

The motion was granted, the noting in default set aside, and Intact was given 30 days to file its defence.

Costs were awarded against the self-represented plaintiff, James McNair, due to his conduct.

The applicant mother sought costs thrown away after a settlement conference was unproductive due to the respondent father's lack of preparedness and misleading conduct.

The court found the father's behavior unreasonable, noting his failure to provide financial disclosure, ill-preparedness on parenting issues, and misleading statements about his knowledge of the conference date.

Considering the complexity of the family law issues, the reasonableness of the applicant's legal fees, and the respondent's ability to pay, the court awarded the applicant $4,500 in elevated costs.

The defendant successfully brought a summary judgment motion dismissing the plaintiff's action for solicitor negligence on the basis of lack of standing, res judicata, and abuse of process.

The defendant sought costs of the motion and the action on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the hours expended and rates charged by the defendant's counsel to be reasonable and modest.

Costs were awarded to the defendant in the fixed sum of $7,960 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

This is a costs endorsement following a focused trial where the applicant (mother) was awarded retroactive child support arrears of $18,086.

The mother sought full recovery costs of $6,864.75.

The court found the respondent (father) acted in bad faith by failing to provide financial disclosure and comply with previous orders.

Additionally, the mother's offer to settle, which was more favourable than the trial result, entitled her to full recovery costs from the date of the offer.

The court ordered the father to pay the mother's full recovery costs, finding the amount reasonable and proportionate, and that the father could afford to pay.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action, commenced in 2015, on grounds of inordinate and inexcusable delay pursuant to Rule 24.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff opposed, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and insufficient funds as reasons for the nine-year delay.

The court found the delay to be inordinate and inexcusable, resulting in substantial prejudice to the defendant's ability to secure witnesses and recollect events, and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff's explanations for the delay were deemed insufficient.

The applicant sought to vary child support and reduce arrears, claiming a material change in circumstances and undue hardship.

The respondent opposed and brought a cross-application for financial disclosure, variation of child support, and reimbursement for Section 7 expenses.

The court found the applicant intentionally unemployed/underemployed, had access to significant income, and failed to provide full financial disclosure despite multiple orders.

The applicant's claims were dismissed.

The court imputed income to the applicant, ordered her to pay substantial child support arrears and ongoing support, and to secure health benefits and life insurance for the child.

The appellants appealed the sanction imposed by a motion judge for the respondents' civil contempt of a Mareva injunction.

The respondents had violated the injunction by encumbering a property and failing to place rental income in trust.

The motion judge imposed a fine and costs, with a conditional order to strike pleadings if not paid.

The appellants sought imprisonment and immediate striking of pleadings, arguing the sanction was inadequate and the costs award was too low.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge's sanction proportionate and his discretion on costs appropriate, emphasizing that incarceration for civil contempt is rare and the contempt in this case was modest.

The respondent brought a motion for enforcement of a settlement agreement regarding retroactive child support and sought partial summary judgment.

The applicant opposed, arguing the absence of an enforceable settlement or grounds for setting it aside due to non-disclosure or unfairness.

The court found that an enforceable domestic contract existed, despite formal deficiencies, and that the terms were reasonable and the negotiation fair.

The motion for partial summary judgment for $150,000 in retroactive child support plus pre-judgment interest was granted, while the respondent's claims for payment from a family trust and compensation for mortgage expenses were dismissed.

The court emphasized that partial summary judgment was appropriate given the discrete nature of the settled issue.

The respondent, who was in significant arrears of child support, brought a motion requesting the suspension of his support obligations for the summer months and a halt to enforcement actions.

The court dismissed the motion, citing the respondent's poor history of compliance, substantial arrears (nearly $100,000), and previous judicial findings of a lack of credibility and attempts to mislead the court.

The court also declined to order the applicant to provide a travel itinerary or passport/health card copies for the children, leaving it to her discretion.

Gurdev Singh Multani appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that continued his conditional discharge after he was found not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder (NCRMD) for uttering threats.

He sought an absolute discharge and also filed motions to dismiss the original offence and claim damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the argument regarding the justification of conditions was raised too late, as the appellant had previously agreed to the terms if a significant threat was found.

The court also dismissed the motions, stating it lacked jurisdiction to reverse the NCRMD finding on an appeal from an ORB disposition.

The respondent, who was in significant arrears of child support, brought a motion requesting the suspension of his support obligations for the summer months and a halt to enforcement actions.

The court dismissed the motion, citing the respondent's poor history of compliance, substantial arrears (nearly $100,000), and previous judicial findings of a lack of credibility and attempts to mislead the court.

The court also declined to order the applicant to provide a travel itinerary or passport/health card copies for the children, leaving it to her discretion.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking orders related to the parties' six-year-old son, including obtaining a report from the Children's Lawyer, mandating communication via AppClose software, the return of the child's birth certificate, cooperation for passport renewal, and permission for international travel.

The applicant father opposed these requests, citing fears of the child not being returned and the impact of travel on their bond.

The court granted all of the respondent's requests, finding the father's fears unsubstantiated, and ordered the father to pay $1000 in costs, noting his self-represented status and lack of bad faith.

The applicant, maternal grandmother, sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, and child support for the child, whose mother had abandoned her parenting role.

The respondent father sought primary residence and sole decision-making, proposing supervised parenting time for the grandmother.

The court granted the grandmother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, finding her plan provided stability and was in the child's best interests, particularly given the father's uninformed decisions regarding the child's medical and educational needs and his intentional under-employment.

The father's parenting time was restricted to daytime to ensure the child's medication compliance and avoid conflict.

Child support was imputed to the father at a full-time minimum wage.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy for rental arrears.

The tenant argued the Board erred by denying an adjournment to challenge his rent-geared-to-income (RGI) calculations, failing to find illegal rent increases, and proceeding despite an incomplete audio recording.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the incomplete recording did not prevent meaningful review, the Board correctly held it lacked jurisdiction over RGI calculations, and the tenant failed to act with reasonable diligence to challenge the calculations elsewhere.

The changes in rent payable were lawful RGI recalculations, and the arrears calculation was an unappealable finding of fact.

This motion for default judgment was brought by Security National Insurance Company, as assignee of the plaintiff, against the at-fault operator, Anthony Williams, following a motor vehicle accident.

Williams had been noted in default.

The court assessed liability and damages, finding Williams liable and the $300,000 settlement paid by Security National to the plaintiff to be fair and reasonable compensation for her injuries, which included chronic pain and psychological issues meeting the Insurance Act threshold.

Default judgment was granted against Williams, along with costs.

The plaintiffs, borrowers in a mortgage transaction, sued their own lawyers and the lender's lawyer.

The lender's lawyer brought a motion to strike the claim against her under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted the motion, finding that the lender's lawyer owed no duty of care to the borrowers and that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action against her.

The claim was struck without leave to amend, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the moving party.

The defendant FundEX brought a motion for default judgment on its crossclaim against the co-defendants (the Reeves defendants) to recover indemnity for a $2.29 million settlement paid to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' action alleged that Reeves, a FundEX employee, defrauded them of their investments.

FundEX settled the main action and noted the Reeves defendants in default on the crossclaim.

The court dismissed the motion for default judgment because FundEX's crossclaim failed to plead the material facts necessary to claim indemnity for a settlement under section 2 of the Negligence Act.

The dismissal was without prejudice, granting FundEX leave to amend its crossclaim and bring a new motion.

The plaintiff, Gabriel J. Martel, brought a defamation action against the City of Ottawa and Jeff DeLoyde.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, relying on the defence of qualified privilege.

The court found that the impugned communications (a Vendor Performance Management report and a Notice of Non-Performance) were made on occasions of qualified privilege, arising from the contractual and business-to-business relationship between the City and ASCO Construction Ltd. (Martel's employer), and in the construction context, including complaints to Martel's employer.

The court also found no evidence of malice to defeat the privilege and that the privilege was not exceeded.

Consequently, the defence of qualified privilege was found to be entirely dispositive of the plaintiff's claims.

The defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.