Taragh Bracken

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order, arguing the judge misapprehended evidence regarding the interpretation of a quitclaim deed and its tax consequences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the interpretation of the deed was a matter of law and intention, not evidence, and that the motion judge correctly considered the tax consequences without misapprehending the evidence.

The applicant brought a motion for an order dispensing with service on the respondent and for directions.

The court awarded interim custody of the children to the applicant without access to the respondent, finding it in the children's best interests, and granted the applicant decision-making authority for medical and educational needs.

An uncontested trial on affidavit evidence was ordered to address permanent custody, access, and the effect of a Quebec court order.

Other claims by the applicant, such as a declaration of biological fatherhood and birth certificate amendments, were not to be addressed at this trial due to the absence of appropriate parties.

This is a costs decision arising from a motion to change child support.

Although the applicant mother's motion to change was dismissed on the merits, the court awarded her costs due to the respondent father's blameworthy conduct in failing to provide required financial disclosure, unilaterally reducing child support payments, refusing to contribute to special and extraordinary expenses, and refusing to engage in mediation.

The mother obtained substantially all relief sought through her comprehensive offer to settle.

The court fixed costs at $22,000 inclusive of HST, representing close to full recovery, to sanction the father's unreasonable behaviour and encourage compliance with court orders and separation agreement obligations.

Motion to Change regarding a separation agreement dated October 20, 2007.

The applicant (mother) sought financial disclosure from the respondent (father), retroactive adjustment of child support from January 1, 2012, and an order fixing arrears and special and extraordinary expenses.

The respondent disputed the claims and sought retroactive readjustment claiming overpayment of child support.

The court found that the respondent failed to provide required annual financial disclosure and drew negative inferences from his conduct.

The motion was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove a significant or long-lasting change in the respondent's financial circumstances.

However, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's share of retroactive special expenses and costs were awarded to the applicant due to the respondent's blameworthy conduct in failing to provide disclosure.

This is a costs decision arising from a motion to change a consent custody order.

The mother sought supervised access for the father and other modifications, while the father sought joint custody.

The litigation was acrimonious and protracted over approximately sixteen months, with both parents making unreasonable claims.

The mother was partially successful, the father was partially successful, and the matter ultimately settled.

The court awarded costs to the mother despite divided success, based on the father's unreasonable conduct, his failure to make a timely settlement offer, and his pursuit of an unjustifiable claim for joint custody.

The court rejected the father's argument that inability to pay should shield him from a costs award.

The appellants brought a motion for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal to the Divisional Court from a Small Claims Court decision.

The underlying decision had dismissed the appellants' motion to set aside an administrative dismissal of their claim.

The court applied the Kefeli factors and found that while the appellants had an intention to appeal, they failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their subsequent delay.

The court also found that the respondents would suffer prejudice and that the merits of the appeal were dubious.

The motion was dismissed with costs.