Shawn Philbert

The moving party (respondent in the main application) brought a motion to strike the responding party's family law application due to his failure to pay two outstanding costs orders.

The responding party admitted non-compliance but sought an adjournment of the trial to allow him time to pay.

The court declined to strike the application, noting that parenting issues required both parties' participation.

However, the court found it would be unjust to allow the responding party to force the moving party to incur costs for a responding expert report while he remained in breach of court orders.

The court ordered that the responding party could not rely on an expert witness report for his spousal support defence unless he paid the outstanding costs orders.

Following two summary judgment motions in a family law proceeding, the respondent sought approximately $115,000 in costs based on offers to settle.

The applicant argued the amount was grossly excessive and disproportionate.

The court applied the principles of proportionality, fairness, and reasonableness, significantly reducing the claimed hours and disallowing time docketed by an unidentified law clerk.

The respondent was awarded a total of $30,000 in costs inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The moving party brought a motion for summary judgment to uphold the validity of a marriage contract.

The responding party sought to set aside the contract under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act, alleging non-disclosure of the value of a property, failure to understand the contract, and duress.

The court found that the responding party had independent legal advice, knew of the property's existence, and failed to establish any grounds for setting aside the agreement.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the marriage contract was declared valid and enforceable.

The applicant father brought a motion for access in a longstanding family law dispute involving allegations of parental alienation.

The court found that the respondent mother had been wrongfully withholding access and obstructing the reunification process with the court-appointed therapist.

The court ordered both parties to continue attending co-parenting sessions, follow the therapist's recommendations, and directed that no further motions be brought without leave.

The respondent was ordered to pay $7,500 in costs due to her refusal to work toward reunification.

The applicant and respondent brought cross-motions in a family law proceeding.

The applicant sought financial disclosure, interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, a certificate of pending litigation, and interim child and spousal support.

The respondent sought an order for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court granted the applicant's requests for disclosure, exclusive possession, a certificate of pending litigation, and interim child support, noting her debilitating spinal condition and the ongoing pandemic.

The respondent's motion for the sale of the home was dismissed, and spousal support was deferred as the respondent was ordered to pay the home's maintenance costs.

The applicant father brought a motion regarding access to the parties' 8-year-old daughter.

Previous orders had found the respondent mother wrongfully withheld access and directed the parties to engage a parenting mediator.

Following reports that the mother was the major obstacle to reunification and that recent visits were marked by the child's violent behaviour, the father sought to suspend the access schedule until the parties received support from a psychotherapist.

The court ordered the parties to immediately engage the psychotherapist, with costs apportioned by income, and suspended the access schedule pending further recommendations.

The mother was ordered to pay $2,500 in costs for unnecessarily prolonging the litigation.

The applicant father sought to increase access to his 8-year-old daughter following a period of estrangement and resistance.

The court reviewed the joint recommendations of the family's mediator and the child's psychotherapist, who noted the child's severe anxiety and enmeshment with the respondent mother.

The court ordered a graduated access schedule leading to full weekend visits, along with behavioral expectations for the child and mandatory co-parenting and individual therapies for the parents.

The applicant father sought to expand his access to his 8-year-old daughter to a full weekend with a 'black-out' period preventing communication with the respondent mother.

The child had been strongly resisting access visits, which the court found was tolerated and potentially encouraged by the mother.

The court ordered the parties to continue working with a parenting mediator to gradually increase the frequency and length of visits.

The court also ordered the mother to take assertive steps and impose tangible consequences to manage the child's behaviour and promote the access visits, warning that a black-out period would be considered if access did not improve.

The applicant father brought a motion for the resumption of access to his 8-year-old daughter, which had been suspended following a physical altercation in June 2019.

Following the involvement of a parenting mediator, the parties agreed to resume in-person access visits.

The court ordered a specific schedule for the initial visits, with subsequent expansion to be guided by the mediator's recommendations.

The court also made orders regarding the apportionment of section 7 expenses for the child's therapy.

Following a three‑day civil trial arising from a physical altercation at a banquet dinner, the plaintiff succeeded and was awarded damages.

The remaining issue concerned the appropriate costs award.

The court considered the plaintiff’s offer to settle, the defendant’s unsuccessful limitation defence, and the conduct of the trial under the simplified procedure, including excessive cross‑examination by defence counsel.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the plaintiff’s costs position reasonable and awarded the full amount claimed.

The plaintiff brought a civil action for damages arising from an alleged assault at a banquet after a dispute over a bottle of wine.

The defendant argued the claim was statute-barred and alternatively asserted self-defence.

The court held that although the Superior Court action was commenced outside the two‑year limitation period, the defendant effectively waived reliance on the limitation defence through counsel’s conduct when consenting to the withdrawal of a timely Small Claims Court action after a parallel Superior Court claim was issued.

On the merits, the court found the defendant was the primary aggressor and that the force used was neither reasonable nor proportionate to any threat.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for dental injuries and related losses.