Susan E. Healey

Following a trial on a motion to change child support, the court addressed costs.

The respondent was largely successful in obtaining a reduction in support for multiple years, although not to the full extent requested.

The court found that both parties had engaged in unreasonable conduct: the respondent by understating income in financial disclosure, and the applicant by persisting in allegations of significantly increased income despite contrary evidence and failing to clarify accounting information before trial.

The respondent had made a reasonable offer to settle that closely approximated the eventual order, while the applicant made none.

Costs were awarded to the respondent, including disbursements for the accountant who testified at trial.

The successful party sought costs following a family law trial regarding custody, access, and child support, where she was entirely successful.

The unsuccessful party's financial claims had been struck prior to trial due to his failure to comply with disclosure orders.

The successful party had made an offer to settle that was less favourable to her than the trial outcome.

The court considered the unsuccessful party's unreasonable behaviour, including his failure to follow multiple court orders and provide financial disclosure.

The court awarded the successful party costs fixed at $30,864, on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter.

The Crown applied to admit a confession made by the accused during a voluntary attendance at a police station.

The accused was not detained and was repeatedly informed he was free to leave, but repeatedly stated he wanted to go to jail due to homelessness, personal hardship, and perceived injuries.

The defence argued the confession was involuntary due to oppressive personal circumstances and inducement.

Applying the confessions rule and the framework in R. v. Oickle, the court held the accused had an operating mind but found that the confession was motivated by the perceived benefit of incarceration and oppressive circumstances unrelated to police misconduct.

The Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt and the statement was excluded.

Following dismissal of a civil action after a 14‑day trial, the successful defendants sought costs.

The plaintiff, now self‑represented, failed to attend the costs hearing and provided written submissions that were unresponsive and contained scandalous allegations attacking credibility findings and the integrity of the trial process.

Applying Rule 57.01(1) and the consequences of a Rule 49.10 offer to settle, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The court reduced certain time entries and disallowed costs related to an appeal but otherwise accepted the defendants’ bill of costs.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay fixed costs exceeding $870,000.

Following a 14-year marriage, the parties proceeded to trial to resolve issues of child support, spousal support, and equalization.

The court determined the respondent's income, accounting for bonuses and a voluntary job change, and imputed $20,000 in income to the applicant, recognizing her long absence from the workforce to care for the children.

The court awarded retroactive and ongoing child support, as well as indefinite spousal support in the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines to address compensatory and non-compensatory needs.

The applicant's claim to exclude a $10,000 inheritance from her net family property was dismissed, as the court found the funds were used for family landscaping, resulting in an equalization payment of $34,659 to the applicant.

Following a family trial in which the applicant's property claims were struck and the respondent proceeded uncontested on financial issues, the court resolved custody, access, and child support disputes arising from the breakdown of a common-law relationship involving two children.

Applying the best interests analysis under s. 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court found the respondent to be the primary and more reliable caregiver, rejected joint custody, and granted her sole custody with specified access to the applicant.

On support, the court imputed income to the self-employed applicant under s. 19(1)(f) of the Ontario Child Support Guidelines because of repeated disclosure failures and evidence of unreported cash income.

Retroactive and ongoing table child support, contribution to s. 7 expenses, and life and health insurance-related terms were ordered.

On a motion to change a final family law order, the moving party sought to reduce child support on the basis of a substantial post-order decline in income and an equal sharing of parenting time.

The responding party alleged prior non-disclosure and sought lump sum retroactive support based on asserted corporate income and shareholder benefits.

The court accepted the accountant's evidence that certain large accounting entries were not income actually available for support purposes, found a genuine income decline beginning in 2013, and held that the parties exercised true 50/50 parenting time.

Applying s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and the framework in Contino, the court varied support to set-off amounts effective January 1, 2014 and January 1, 2015.

On a motion to change a final divorce order, the applicant sought substantial retroactive reductions in child support, termination of spousal support, reallocation of section 7 expenses, relief from arrears-related obligations, and restraining relief, relying primarily on the closure of his business and reduced employment income following personal bankruptcy.

The court found a material change in circumstances, but also found that the bankruptcy and business closure were voluntary, strategically motivated, and accompanied by incomplete income disclosure, particularly as to tip income.

Despite serious credibility concerns and highly unreasonable conduct, the court held the existing order was unrealistically beyond the applicant's present means and varied support retroactively to more practical amounts.

Child support was reduced effective August 1, 2012, spousal support was reduced to nominal ongoing support of $200 per month, section 7 contribution was fixed at 46%, mutual restraining-type terms were imposed, and the respondent received full recovery costs.

The landlord brought a motion to lift a Certificate of Stay and dismiss the tenant's application for judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant had sought judicial review instead of appealing the Board's decision.

The Divisional Court lifted the stay, finding it was improperly issued by the Registrar, and quashed the judicial review application because the tenant failed to exhaust his statutory appeal rights under the Residential Tenancies Act and the application lacked merit.

The applicant brought a motion for directions regarding whether a prior court order required the commencement of a fresh action with new pleadings, productions, and examinations for discovery in a dispute concerning the calculation of gross rentable area under a commercial lease.

The respondent opposed the need for a new action and sought to proceed directly to trial on an expedited basis.

The court found that the dispute centered on expert methodology rather than the parties’ intentions or lease validity, and that the lease contained a mechanism for determining gross rentable area.

The court also noted prejudice to the property owner caused by ongoing litigation preventing the sale of the building.

Directions were issued converting the matter into an action proceeding to expedited trial and treating prior application evidence as partial discovery.

A consulting company sued a corporate client for breach of a professional services agreement following termination of the consulting engagement.

The consultant claimed unpaid compensation, bonuses, equity participation, and damages for bad faith termination.

The court held that the written agreement contained the entire agreement and did not support claims for equity or performance bonuses due to absence or uncertainty of terms.

The court found the consultant committed misconduct, including breach of confidentiality and unauthorized personal use of company equipment, justifying termination for cause.

However, the termination clause required payment of a fixed severance amount regardless of cause, and the defendant's counterclaim for damages was dismissed for lack of proof.

During a family law proceeding, a non-party corporation sought clarification regarding whether earlier disclosure and examination orders were stayed pending a forthcoming motion to set them aside.

The court considered whether it retained jurisdiction to grant or clarify a stay despite an appeal having been initiated, examining conflicting authorities interpreting Rule 63.02.

Adopting the view that the amended rule grants concurrent jurisdiction to both the trial court and the appeal court to grant a stay, the court held it retained jurisdiction.

Applying a balance of convenience analysis, the court found that requiring the non-party to comply with onerous disclosure obligations before the motion was determined would cause disproportionate prejudice.

The court ordered a stay of the prior orders until the motion to set them aside or change them is decided.

The defendant, the lead driver in a three-car rear-end collision, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim against her.

The court reviewed the competing versions of the accident and found that under any scenario, the moving party was rear-ended after stopping for a turning vehicle.

Applying the presumption of fault for following vehicles, the court found no evidence of negligence by the moving party.

The motion was granted, the claim against the moving party was dismissed, and costs of $17,000 were awarded.

Following a successful motion to change child support, the moving party sought costs.

The court found the moving party had made a compliant offer to settle under the Family Law Rules that was more favourable to the opposing party than the final order.

The opposing party argued that costs should be reduced due to the moving party’s pre‑litigation conduct, the impact of costs on adult children still attending university, and allegedly excessive legal fees.

The court held that unreasonable conduct under Rule 24(4) and (5) concerns behaviour during the litigation rather than pre‑litigation conduct.

Finding the moving party’s litigation conduct reasonable and the claimed fees appropriate for the complexity and time span of the issues, the court awarded fixed costs.

Costs decision following a motion by the Attorney General seeking a stay of an order pending a motion for leave to appeal.

The underlying order directed that more than $4 million seized in an in rem forfeiture proceeding be released to the respondents.

The court found that although the Attorney General brought the motion on very short notice, the respondents’ opposition was unreasonable given the risk that releasing the funds could render the appeal moot and cause irreparable harm by allowing the money to leave the jurisdiction.

However, the respondents should not bear costs that would have been incurred even if the motion had been brought on consent.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs payable by two respondents jointly and severally.

The moving party brought a motion to change a 1999 divorce order requiring monthly child support of $762, seeking termination of support effective December 1999 and rescission of accumulated arrears.

The court considered whether a material change in circumstances existed under s. 17 of the Divorce Act and the Child Support Guidelines.

Evidence established that the payor had never earned the income assumed in the original order and had operated a consistently unprofitable business while accumulating significant debt and relying on loans for subsistence.

The court imputed modest income beginning in 2006 and recalculated historical support obligations.

Because the payor had already paid more than what the recalculated guideline amounts required, all arrears were rescinded and prospective support was set based on an imputed income.

Following a trial concerning a possessory land claim, the successful party sought costs and the court initiated a Rule 57.07 inquiry regarding whether the opposing party’s lawyer should personally bear responsibility for wasted costs.

The court first rejected a recusal motion alleging reasonable apprehension of bias, applying the test from Wewaykum and concluding that prior findings and procedural steps did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

On the merits, the court applied the two‑step framework from Galganov v. Russell (Township) to determine whether the lawyer caused unnecessary costs and whether a personal costs order was warranted.

The court found the lawyer knowingly or negligently presented an expert witness whose lack of impartiality was evident, resulting in significant wasted trial time.

Exercising its discretion, the court ordered the lawyer to reimburse the client for 20% of the $490,000 costs award and to pay additional costs for the Rule 57.07 hearing.

The Crown appealed an acquittal for criminal harassment under s. 264 of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge had excluded evidence regarding the content of prior communications between the accused and the complainant and then concluded that the complainant’s fear was not reasonable.

The Superior Court held that prior conduct evidence is presumptively admissible in criminal harassment cases because it provides the context necessary to assess reasonable fear and the accused’s intent or recklessness.

The court further held that the trial judge erred by excluding the evidence without considering less drastic remedies and that the resulting acquittal was unreasonable given the findings of repeated unwanted contact and continued behaviour after police warnings.

The acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The moving party sought to vary a prior costs order so that costs would be payable personally by a principal of the plaintiff corporation, alleging that the principal had sworn a misleading affidavit in opposition to a motion for security for costs.

The motion relied on Rule 59.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and argued that evidence from a later judgment debtor examination contradicted the earlier affidavit.

The court held that, except for one questionable statement, the evidence did not sufficiently contradict the affidavit and did not meet the test for fresh evidence established in Becker Milk.

Further, the moving party had prior knowledge raising doubts about the corporation’s assets and failed to exercise reasonable diligence, such as cross‑examining on the affidavit.

The motion to vary the order was therefore dismissed and costs were awarded to the responding party.

Multiple related motions arose from litigation concerning the sale of assets of a mulch and container business.

The moving parties sought extensive relief including summary judgment, contempt findings, setting aside an Anton Piller order, injunctive relief, venue transfer, and procedural directions across three related proceedings.

The court set aside the Anton Piller order and ordered seized materials returned, transferred certain proceedings from Toronto to Barrie, and consolidated two related matters to streamline litigation.

Requests for summary judgment, contempt findings, removal of counsel, and additional injunctive relief were largely dismissed due to insufficient evidentiary foundation or procedural defects.

The court concluded that several issues required trial and directed administrative steps regarding prior orders.

Costs were ordered to be borne by each party due to mixed success.