Shaw J.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' motion for an interlocutory injunction under the oppression provisions of the Business Corporations Act, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The applicants argued they were justified in bringing the motion and sought their own costs despite being unsuccessful.

The court rejected this argument, finding no reason to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

The court awarded the successful respondents their costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $2,750 for fees plus HST and $175.56 for disbursements.

The moving party brought a motion for directions challenging the validity of his late mother's 2006 will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by his brother, the responding party.

The responding party brought a cross-motion to set aside or vary a preservation order previously granted without notice.

The court found that the moving party met the minimal evidentiary threshold required to call the will's validity into question and granted the order for directions.

The court also varied the preservation order to narrow its scope, finding that while the original order was too broad, the assets in dispute met the test for preservation.

The plaintiff brought an action for negligence and battery against a locum chiropractor, alleging that the chiropractor performed a cervical spine adjustment in contravention of a 'No C/S ADJ' note in her chart, causing a disc herniation at C7-T1.

The court found as a fact that the defendant did not perform a cervical adjustment, but rather performed thoracic adjustments that were consistent with the plaintiff's previous treatments.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish causation on a balance of probabilities, as the onset of neurological symptoms occurred hours later, and the disc herniation could have been caused by minor daily trauma given the plaintiff's pre-existing degenerative disc disease.

The court further found that the defendant met the standard of care and had obtained valid informed consent.

The action was dismissed.

The defendants sought costs after successfully moving to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for want of jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs argued they were impecunious and that a costs award would deny them access to justice.

The court rejected this argument, noting the action had already been dismissed and impecuniosity does not grant a license to bring baseless actions with impunity.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiffs' conduct did not meet the threshold of reprehensible behaviour, but awarded partial indemnity costs of $35,000 for fees plus disbursements, noting the plaintiffs' voluminous and vexatious pleadings unnecessarily complicated the proceeding.

The defendants successfully moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for want of jurisdiction and sought their costs.

The plaintiffs argued they were impecunious and that no costs should be awarded.

The court held that impecuniosity does not immunize a party from costs, particularly where the action should not have been brought.

The court declined to award full or substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiffs' conduct did not reach the required threshold of reprehensible behavior.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the defendants, fixed at $25,000 and $35,000 for fees, plus disbursements and HST.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for want of jurisdiction, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The self-represented plaintiff argued he was impecunious and should not pay costs.

The court rejected the impecuniosity argument, noting it does not excuse bringing a baseless action.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs as the plaintiff's conduct was not reprehensible, but awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $5,000 for fees plus HST and disbursements.

The plaintiffs successfully defeated the defendant's motion to dismiss their defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs.

The defendant argued that no costs should be awarded pursuant to the presumption in s. 137.1(8).

The court distinguished prior case law, finding the plaintiffs were individuals protecting their reputations, not a corporation using strategic litigation.

The court awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs, fixing fees at $7,500 plus disbursements and HST.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a contractor’s claim arising from a tender competition for construction of a medical centre.

The contractor alleged that the municipality breached Contract A by failing to award the project to it after applying an alternate price credit related to winter suspension of construction.

The court found that construction did not begin in fall 2013 and was never suspended during the winter as alleged in the pleadings, rendering the alternate credit inapplicable.

The municipality was entitled to evaluate bids based on base bid prices and was not required to adjust bids using alternate credits that were irrelevant to the project as ultimately undertaken.

Summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

Following dismissal of a motion under s. 47 of the Construction Lien Act seeking to discharge a construction lien as filed out of time, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful lien claimant sought substantial indemnity costs alleging the motion was tactical and should have been abandoned after cross‑examination evidence emerged.

The court held there was no unreasonable conduct or bad faith justifying substantial indemnity and applied the general discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Considering reasonableness, complexity, the amount in issue, and duplication of lawyer time, the court reduced the claimed partial indemnity fees.

Costs were fixed at $8,000 plus HST and disbursements, payable within 30 days.

The applicant mother brought a motion for sole custody, child support, and other relief, while the respondent father sought joint custody.

The parties had been exercising a shared parenting arrangement since separation.

The court declined to make a final custody order, maintaining the status quo of shared care and control pending an investigation by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The access schedule was slightly modified to allow the mother one weekend per month.

As the parties had virtually identical incomes and shared custody over 40% of the time, no periodic child support was ordered, but the parties were directed to share section 7 expenses equally.

A self-represented mother brought a motion seeking sole custody of the parties’ child and an order permitting the child’s relocation from Ontario to Alberta.

The father opposed the motion and brought his own motion seeking custody.

The court held that the competing affidavit evidence and significant factual disputes required determination at trial, particularly regarding the child’s best interests and credibility issues.

The child had been residing with the father for approximately three years following the mother’s move to Alberta after a mental health crisis.

The court declined to disrupt the status quo on an interim basis and ordered that the child continue to reside with the father pending trial or further court order.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act after police discovered 296 oxycodone pills and cash in a vehicle.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 12 to 18 months emphasizing general deterrence due to the severe impact of opioid trafficking in Northwestern Ontario communities.

The defence argued for a conditional sentence based on the offender’s lack of criminal record, significant personal hardships, demonstrated rehabilitation, and positive prospects for employment and education.

Applying the principles in ss. 718, 718.1, and 718.2 of the Criminal Code and the conditional sentence framework in s. 742.1, the court concluded that a community-based sentence with strict conditions would sufficiently address denunciation and deterrence while supporting rehabilitation.

A conditional sentence of two years less a day followed by probation was imposed.

Following a six‑day construction contract trial where the plaintiff contractor obtained damages for breach of contract, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful party sought partial indemnity costs significantly higher than the amount the defendant argued was reasonable.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and established appellate guidance on reasonableness and proportionality, the court reviewed counsel’s hourly rate, time spent, success at trial, litigation conduct, and challenged disbursements.

The court found the plaintiff was substantially successful but reduced certain claimed rates and disbursements, including photocopying and unexplained charges.

A fair and reasonable partial indemnity costs award was fixed accordingly.

The appellant appealed a conviction for sexual interference under s. 151 of the Criminal Code arising from a video recording showing an embrace and kiss between the accused and an underage complainant.

The trial judge rejected defences of mistaken belief in age, non‑sexual conduct, and lack of identity.

On appeal, the court held the trial judge made no error regarding the mistaken belief defence or identification evidence, but erred in law in concluding that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the kiss was of a sexual nature.

Applying the objective test in R. v. Chase, the court held the interaction could reasonably be interpreted as a non‑sexual greeting in the circumstances.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The applicant sought spousal support following a 12.5-year cohabitation and marriage.

The applicant suffers from mental illness, is unable to work, and receives CPP disability benefits.

The respondent earns approximately $71,500 plus bonuses and supports an adult child from a previous relationship who is attending post-secondary education.

The court found the applicant entitled to non-compensatory support based on need.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $650 per month in spousal support, commencing prospectively from July 1, 2013, for an indefinite duration, subject to a review de novo after January 1, 2019.

The applicant spouse brought a motion for interim spousal support following separation after approximately 28 years of cohabitation and marriage without children.

The applicant had left the matrimonial home and her employment following separation and was receiving employment insurance benefits after prior health issues including cancer treatment.

The respondent conceded entitlement to support but disputed the amount, citing commuting and living expenses.

The court applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines using updated income figures and considered the parties’ expenses and circumstances.

Interim support was ordered at the low end of the SSAG range.

The defendant brought a motion during a jury trial for a ruling that the plaintiff's claims for future care costs and non-pecuniary damages were barred by the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The plaintiff suffered a whiplash injury in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and subsequently developed chronic pain.

The defendant argued the plaintiff was malingering and exaggerating her symptoms for financial gain.

The trial judge dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff credible and concluding she suffered a serious permanent impairment due to chronic pain caused by the accident, despite the jury ultimately awarding only $10,000 for general damages and $14,521.21 for past loss of income.

Following a jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendant brought a threshold motion arguing the plaintiff's claims for non-pecuniary damages and future care costs were barred under s. 267.5 of the Insurance Act.

The court reviewed extensive expert medical evidence regarding the plaintiff's chronic pain.

Despite the lack of objective findings and the jury's low damage award, the trial judge found the plaintiff credible and concluded she suffered from chronic pain caused by the accident, meeting the threshold of a serious permanent impairment.

The defendant's motion was dismissed, and judgment was entered in accordance with the jury's verdict.

The applicant brought a motion seeking child support and spousal support, while the respondent brought a motion seeking access to one of the children.

The respondent stood in the place of a parent to the applicant’s older child but argued that support should not be payable because the child’s biological father had a support obligation and because their relationship had broken down.

The court applied s. 5 of the Child Support Guidelines and held that, given the limited evidence regarding the biological father’s enforceable support obligation, the step-parent respondent should pay full guideline child support on an interim basis.

The court also awarded nominal interim spousal support based on the respondent’s limited ability to pay and adjusted the access schedule to maximize the child’s contact with the respondent while accommodating his work schedule.

The plaintiff, a party under a disability due to a severe head injury sustained in a jail assault, settled his negligence action against the Crown for $750,000.

The plaintiff and his litigation guardian opposed structuring the settlement funds.

On a motion for settlement approval under Rule 7.08, the court ordered the funds to be structured to protect the plaintiff's financial interests and preserve his ODSP benefits.

The court also approved the plaintiff's solicitors' request for legal fees of approximately $250,000, finding the fees reasonable given the complexity of the case, the risk assumed by the solicitors over nine years, and the favourable result achieved.