Suzanne M. Stevenson

Following a family law trial addressing custody, access, child support, spousal support, and equalization, both parties sought costs.

The court applied Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules and found that success at trial was divided.

Although the respondent obtained sole custody, the order was conditional and the court expressed concerns about the respondent’s behaviour and its effect on the children’s relationship with the applicant.

Neither party satisfied the requirements of Rule 18(14) for full recovery of costs based on offers to settle.

Considering the complexity of the issues, the parties’ conduct, the offers exchanged, and the best interests of the children, the court declined to award costs to either party.

Following a family law motion involving child support, investment accounting, and financial disclosure, the court addressed the issue of costs.

Both parties argued they were successful: the respondent emphasized obtaining retroactive child support, entitlement to the Child Tax Benefit, and accounting for investment funds, while the applicant emphasized the court’s refusal to impute the higher income alleged by the respondent.

Applying Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court concluded that neither party achieved complete success and that the motion produced divided results.

In the absence of formal offers to settle and considering the mixed outcomes on the substantive issues, the court declined to award costs to either party.

The applicant father brought a motion for the immediate sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home, while the respondent mother sought interim exclusive possession pending trial.

The applicant argued he was in a desperate financial situation due to unemployment and Parkinson's disease, while the respondent argued a sale would prejudice her claims for security for support and a vesting order at trial, and would disrupt the children's stability.

The court dismissed the motion for sale and granted the respondent interim exclusive possession, finding that an immediate sale would prejudice the respondent's trial claims and that maintaining stability in the matrimonial home was in the children's best interests.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for a one-quarter share of the assets of a family business operated in China.

The defendants argued there was no evidence or corporate documentation supporting the plaintiff's legal entitlement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial due to conflicting evidence regarding the nature of the business, the existence of an oral agreement among family members, and the defendants' failure to provide adequate documentary disclosure.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking expanded parenting time, including overnight access, with the parties’ young child.

The applicant mother opposed the expansion and brought a cross‑motion seeking dismissal of the motion, temporary custody, and other relief, arguing that the child was not comfortable with overnight visits and required stability.

An Office of the Children’s Lawyer report recommended gradual expansion of parenting time leading eventually to overnight visits, although no timeline had been established.

The court found no evidence suggesting that overnight parenting time with the father posed any risk to the child and concluded that progression toward overnights was in the child’s best interests despite the high conflict between the parties.

A staged schedule was ordered gradually expanding the father’s time to include overnights and alternating weekends, while custody was left to be determined at trial.

In a family law trial involving custody, access, child support, spousal support, and property equalization following separation, the court addressed allegations that one child had become alienated from the father in a high‑conflict parenting dispute.

The court found the child was moderately to severely estranged from the father but concluded there was no deliberate campaign of parental alienation by the mother, though her emotional conduct contributed to the deterioration of the relationship.

Sole custody was granted to the mother with strict conditions requiring counselling and participation in a reunification program, while maintaining significant parenting time for the father and equal time with the younger child.

The court ordered child support based on a shared parenting arrangement for one child and primary residence with the mother for the other, awarded time‑limited spousal support, and ordered equalization of net family property in favour of the father.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking retroactive child support, imputation of income, section 7 expenses, and financial disclosure relating to investment income.

The court considered whether income should be imputed to the father under s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines where he had been unemployed for several years and relied partly on investment income and alleged parental gifts.

Applying the framework in Drygala v. Pauli, the court found insufficient evidence on the motion record to determine intentional underemployment or to impute significant additional income beyond acknowledged investment income.

An interim income of $29,000 was imputed pending trial, resulting in guideline child support of $423 per month for two children retroactive to November 1, 2012.

The court also ordered disclosure of investment records, repayment of withheld investment interest to the mother, contribution to section 7 expenses, and preservation of family property.

The applicant brought a motion seeking retroactive and ongoing spousal support, an order imputing income to the respondent, life insurance beneficiary designation, medical and dental coverage, and related relief following a long-term marriage and separation nine years earlier.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing that the applicant had failed to provide full financial disclosure and that entitlement to support and equalization issues were unresolved.

The court applied the principles governing imputation of income under s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and the test from Drygala v. Pauli.

It found insufficient evidence that the respondent was intentionally unemployed and declined to impute income.

Given extensive conflicting evidence regarding post‑separation trusts, assets, and disclosure, the court held that entitlement to spousal support and equalization issues should be determined at trial rather than on a motion.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to change the children’s primary residence, alter the parenting schedule, determine schooling, and terminate his child support obligations.

The court considered extensive evidence regarding one child’s serious behavioural disorders, professional assessments, and testimony from a family services worker indicating the need for stability, structure, and consistent parental supervision.

The court found that the mother had demonstrated ongoing inconsistency in attending appointments, follow-through with services, and providing stability, while the father presented a structured care plan including specialized educational programming.

Determining that the children’s best interests required urgent intervention, the court ordered that primary residence change to the father commencing September 1, 2013 and directed that the children attend a school capable of addressing the behavioural needs of one child.

The father’s child support obligation was terminated effective July 1, 2013, while the issue of potential support from the mother was adjourned and disclosure ordered.

Following a motion enforcing signed Minutes of Settlement, the court determined costs.

The defendants, who were successful on the motion enforcing the settlement, sought substantial indemnity costs after the self‑represented parties attempted to resile from the settlement reached at mediation.

Applying the principles from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized that costs must be fair and reasonable rather than a strict calculation of hours multiplied by rates.

The court reduced the amounts claimed due to concerns about duplication of work and excessive hours.

Costs were awarded to the successful defendants in reduced amounts.

The respondent brought a motion to reduce temporary child support and terminate spousal support following a claimed reduction in income after losing prior employment.

The applicant cross‑moved seeking increased child and spousal support and argued the respondent was intentionally under‑employed.

Applying the test under s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and the principles in Drygala v. Pauli, the court found the respondent intentionally under‑employed due to insufficient efforts to obtain comparable employment and inadequate medical evidence supporting his reduced capacity.

Income was imputed to the respondent at $66,000 and the applicant’s income was set at $25,000 for support purposes.

Based on those incomes and the shared parenting arrangement, the court varied the temporary support amounts pending trial.

Following a family law trial concerning variation of spousal support, the court determined costs under Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules.

Both parties claimed substantial success, but the court found that success at trial was divided.

The court reviewed the parties’ offers to settle, litigation conduct, complexity of the issues, counsel rates, time spent, and disbursements.

Although neither party met the criteria for full recovery of costs under Rule 18(14), the respondent had made reasonable offers and incurred additional expense due to the applicant’s late filings and failure to comply with an order regarding expert evidence.

Considering these factors, the court ordered the applicant to pay nominal costs to the respondent.

Following the dismissal of an appeal, the successful parties sought costs of $17,790.17 on a partial indemnity basis.

The unsuccessful appellant argued that the claimed fees were excessive, particularly the time spent preparing the factum and the attendance time for the hearing.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principle that costs should be fair and reasonable rather than strictly reflective of actual legal expenses.

The court found that certain hours claimed for factum preparation were excessive and that the hearing occupied only a half day.

Costs were fixed at $14,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant receiver sought leave to issue a writ of possession over a mortgaged property after alleging the respondent breached Minutes of Settlement by renting out the property rather than residing there.

The dispute centred on the interpretation of the phrase that the respondent would “remain in possession” of the property.

Applying established principles of contractual interpretation, the court held the settlement terms were clear and did not require the respondent to personally reside at the property.

The respondent retained possession so long as specified obligations were met, and there was no evidence those conditions were breached.

Accordingly, the alleged breach did not occur and the applicant was not entitled to enforce possession.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against the defendant for $150,000 USD based on a promissory note, and sought dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim.

The defendant argued the funds were an investment in a joint venture, not a simple loan, and counterclaimed for damages related to the joint venture.

The court found genuine issues requiring a trial, including conflicting evidence about the nature of the agreement, the purpose of the funds, and the involvement of other parties.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

Following a prior decision striking the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim in its entirety without leave to amend, several successful defendants sought costs.

The court considered the governing principles for costs awards, including the requirement that costs be fair and reasonable and the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although the defendants sought higher partial indemnity amounts, the court exercised discretion to reduce the awards.

The court ordered the self-represented plaintiff to pay fixed costs to multiple defendants reflecting their success on the motions while ensuring the amounts were reasonable in the circumstances.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from allegedly passing off their gym business as affiliated with the plaintiffs' boxing and fitness business.

They also sought declarations regarding an alleged website sabotage, orders compelling third‑party production relating to a domain name, and further document production.

Applying the three‑part test for interlocutory injunctions from RJR‑MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), the court found there was a serious issue to be tried but concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

The court held that the plaintiffs’ evidentiary record relied heavily on hearsay from a marketing consultant rather than affidavits from individuals with direct knowledge.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, including the requests for declaratory and production relief.

The defendants brought a motion to strike a self-represented plaintiff’s claim arising from repeated unsuccessful attempts to obtain a family medicine residency position.

The plaintiff alleged negligence, bad faith, unequal treatment, and Charter violations after being denied interviews and admission to residency programs.

The court held the action was an attempt to re‑litigate issues previously determined in multiple proceedings and was barred by cause of action estoppel and abuse of process.

The pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action and failed to establish viable claims in negligence, contract, or discrimination.

The court also held that academic admissions decisions fall within universities’ broad discretion and are reviewable, if at all, by judicial review rather than civil action.

Following reasons granting an interlocutory injunction in a dispute involving alleged breach of fiduciary duties and misuse of confidential information, the court addressed disagreements over the form of the order and costs.

The plaintiff sought additional wording expanding the scope of entities and confidential technology referenced in the injunction, which the court refused because the relief had not been sought in the motion record or oral submissions.

The court required that the original wording of the injunction regarding preservation of confidential information be maintained.

A stay of the data‑imaging paragraph was granted for two defendants pending determination of their motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

Costs of the interlocutory injunction motion were ordered to be in the cause.

The defendant appealed a master’s order refusing to compel answers to discovery refusals and production of additional financial documents in a fatal motor vehicle accident action involving dependency claims under the Family Law Act.

The appeal challenged the master’s refusal to require the surviving spouse to answer questions about post‑accident income and dividends and to produce corporate and financial documents sought by the defendant’s expert.

The court held that the master applied the correct relevance test and did not commit a palpable and overriding error in determining that questions relating to post‑accident investment income were irrelevant to the dependency claim in the circumstances of a single‑income household.

The court also upheld the master’s discretionary decision to deny several production requests as premature or unnecessary, particularly where the materials had not been pursued during discovery or involved non‑parties.

The appeal was dismissed and the discovery rulings were upheld.