4 total
The father was granted interim primary residency of the four younger children with police enforcement.
The applicant father brought an emergency motion for interim primary residency of four younger children, police enforcement, and an order prohibiting the mother from removing children from the Niagara Region.
The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for interim custody, which was not deemed urgent and was adjourned.
The court granted the applicant father's motion, finding the mother exercised poor judgment in leaving the children without adequate care.
The court ordered the four younger children to reside with the father, with police enforcement and a mobility restriction on the mother.
Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the applicant.
Motion to extend timetable granted; delay explained by voluminous video disclosure and no prejudice found.
The plaintiffs brought a motion to vary a timetable order that required the action to be set down for trial by October 31, 2016, failing which it would be dismissed.
The defendants opposed the motion, citing delay and non-compensable prejudice.
The court found that the delay was adequately explained by the voluminous video disclosure and log books that needed to be reviewed.
The court also found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.
The motion was granted, a new timetable was set, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay $750 for the reproduction of digital video.
Partial indemnity costs awarded; motion for personal costs against defendant's lawyer dismissed despite misleading submissions.
Following a summary judgment awarding the plaintiff damages for unpaid litigation loans, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs and an order that the defendant's lawyer be held personally liable for a portion of the costs under Rule 57.07(1).
The court awarded partial indemnity costs, finding the matter was not complex and the plaintiff's costs claims were excessive.
The court declined to order costs against the defendant's lawyer personally, despite finding she made careless and misleading statements in her costs submissions, as the high threshold for such an order was not met.
Post-judgment interest was awarded at the contractual rate of 19.5%.
Litigation loan agreements enforced; borrower bound by 18% compounded interest terms.
The plaintiff lender brought a motion for summary judgment to recover three litigation loans advanced to the defendant during the course of a personal injury action.
The defendant admitted owing the principal on two loans but disputed the contractual interest rate of 18% compounded monthly and alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, lack of disclosure of a conflict of interest, and unconscionability.
The court found the borrower had been fully informed of the loan terms and that the interest rate and structure were standard within the litigation lending industry.
The court rejected the defences, holding that any failure to disclose the lender’s relationship to the borrower’s lawyer caused no compensable loss and did not invalidate the agreements.
Summary judgment was granted enforcing repayment of the loans with interest according to their terms, except that interest was not awarded on one loan where the lender had waived it.
