Thomas A. Bielby

Following earlier family law reasons, the court addressed outstanding issues relating to child support and costs.

The moving party sought child support for an adult child, arguing the child remained a “child of the marriage” under the Divorce Act.

The court found the evidence did not establish that the adult child met the statutory definition and also found the responding party lacked the means to pay support.

On costs, success was divided: the responding party succeeded on spousal support but failed on the limitation issue relating to an equalization claim, while the moving party’s claim for child support failed.

In the circumstances, the court ordered that there be no order as to costs.

Following a family law trial addressing child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property, the court considered costs submissions after the release of the judgment.

Success on the substantive issues was divided, but the court found the respondent had failed to provide adequate financial disclosure and evidence necessary to properly litigate the equalization issues.

The court accepted that the respondent was self‑represented and receiving Ontario Works, but determined that some costs should nonetheless be awarded.

The applicant’s claimed legal fees and disbursements were substantially reduced.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded in light of the respondent’s disclosure failures and the mixed success on the substantive issues.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend a statement of claim to plead that certain corporate defendants were sham entities incorporated to perpetrate a fraud and to seek relief piercing the corporate veil against individuals controlling the corporations.

The defendants opposed, arguing the amendment introduced a new cause of action barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held the proposed amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but instead sought an additional remedy arising from facts already pleaded, namely alleged fraudulent misrepresentations and misuse of corporate entities.

Alternatively, the court found that even if a new cause of action were pleaded, the limitation period had not expired because discoverability arose only after examinations for discovery revealed that the corporations conducted no legitimate insurance business.

Leave to amend was granted.

Following dismissal of an application seeking a certificate of pending litigation and specific performance relating to two Brampton properties, the successful respondents sought costs exceeding $10,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant argued the requested costs were excessive given the limited length and complexity of the hearing.

The court agreed that the hours claimed and counsel fee were excessive for a matter argued in under two hours.

Costs were reduced and fixed at $5,807 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant husband sought a divorce, and the respondent wife claimed an equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The court found that the wife's equalization claim was brought well beyond the six-year limitation period and declined to extend the time limit, finding she had not acted in good faith given her prior consultations with counsel.

However, the court awarded the wife a lump sum spousal support payment of $25,000 to reimburse her for home repairs, plus periodic spousal support of $850 per month for three years based on her need and the husband's ability to pay.

Following a short marriage of approximately two and a half years with one child, the court determined issues of child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court imputed income of $52,000 to the father for several years due to insufficient evidence of job search efforts and ordered ongoing child support based on that imputed income.

Limited transitional spousal support was found appropriate given the respondent’s dependency at separation, but amounts were offset by the applicant’s overpayment of child support and payments toward matrimonial home expenses, resulting in no spousal support owing.

The court rejected claims of disability and imputed minimum wage income to the respondent for later years.

An equalization payment was ordered from the applicant to the respondent despite the short duration of the marriage.

During a judge‑alone criminal trial involving allegations of sexual assault against a child complainant, the court conducted a voir dire on the admissibility of expert evidence regarding patterns of disclosure by child victims of abuse.

The proposed expert, a clinical psychologist specializing in child abuse, testified generally about delayed and incremental disclosure, inhibitors to disclosure, grooming, and the risk of false memories arising from repeated interviews.

The defence argued the evidence was unnecessary and risked improperly bolstering the complainant’s credibility.

Applying the framework in R. v. Mohan and R. v. Abbey, and distinguishing authorities dealing only with delayed disclosure, the court held that expert evidence on broader patterns of disclosure, including incremental disclosure, inconsistencies, and recantations, could assist the trier of fact.

The court concluded the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect and admitted the expert evidence.

The plaintiff brought a Rule 30.10 motion seeking production of portions of a Special Investigations Unit investigation file arising from a motor vehicle collision involving a police vehicle.

Relevance of the requested materials was conceded, but the Attorney General on behalf of the SIU opposed disclosure on the basis of witness confidentiality and the exceptional nature of non-party production.

The court reviewed the sealed SIU materials and applied the fairness test under Rule 30.10, balancing confidentiality interests against the plaintiff’s ability to fairly prepare for trial on the contested issue of liability.

Because the police materials already produced to the plaintiff were heavily redacted and prevented effective investigation and contact with a key civilian witness, the court found it would be unfair for the plaintiff to proceed without certain SIU documents.

The court ordered production of specific investigator summaries and notes relating to officer witnesses and one civilian witness but declined to order production of audio recordings and other investigative materials.

The offender was convicted of robbery with violence, use of an imitation firearm, unlawful confinement, and assault with a weapon arising from a planned home invasion.

Two masked offenders entered the victim’s home with handguns, demanded drugs and money, struck the victim with a firearm, and fled with minimal property.

The court considered aggravating factors including the use of a weapon, planning, disguises, and the sanctity of the home, as well as the offender’s criminal record.

Mitigating factors included character references and evidence of community involvement.

Prior appellate authorities on home invasion sentencing established a general range of approximately five to thirteen years.

The court imposed a total penitentiary sentence of five years, including the mandatory consecutive one‑year sentence for the imitation firearm offence.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment that resulted in dismissal of the action, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The court reiterated the general principle that costs follow the event and rejected submissions that costs should not be awarded.

Although the plaintiff raised concerns regarding mental health issues and impecuniosity, the court concluded that these circumstances did not justify departing from the ordinary rule.

The defendant’s claimed costs were found to be reasonable in light of the work performed and the parties’ bills of costs.

Costs were awarded to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis in the amount claimed.

The responding party brought a motion to vary a 2009 support order seeking a retroactive reduction of child and spousal support based on reduced income.

The court considered evidence that the moving party was a licensed plumber who had failed to maintain union membership, reinstate his driver’s licence, or make efforts to secure employment while accumulating significant support arrears.

The court found serious credibility concerns and concluded that the moving party had deliberately manipulated his income and failed to establish a material change in circumstances.

The original support order based on imputed income remained appropriate.

Limited relief was granted suspending enforcement of existing arrears temporarily and confirming an agreed termination date for spousal support.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of an action to recover three alleged loans made between 1998 and 2000.

The defendant argued the claims were statute-barred under the former Limitations Act, which imposed a six‑year limitation period.

The court found the first loan became due in 1999 and the other two loans were properly characterized as demand loans whose causes of action arose when the funds were advanced.

The plaintiff failed to produce written acknowledgements restarting the limitation period and provided insufficient medical evidence to establish incapacity suspending the limitation period.

The court held there was no trust or equitable claim capable of avoiding the limitation defence and no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The estate trustee of a deceased co‑owner sought an order under the Partition Act for the sale of jointly held property.

The respondent, the deceased’s brother and co‑owner, opposed the sale and asserted that the deceased and his spouse had separated and settled their claims, allegedly releasing any entitlement to the property.

The respondent relied primarily on affidavit evidence recounting statements by the deceased and references to missing documents allegedly confirming the settlement.

The court held that while the applicant’s case appeared strong, there were material factual disputes concerning whether the surviving spouse had relinquished her interest.

Given the evidentiary conflicts and the hearsay nature of the record, the matter required viva voce evidence and a trial of the issues.

The application for sale under the Partition Act was therefore refused and the matter directed to trial.

Following an endorsement where both parties were successful on their respective motions regarding child access and travel to Egypt, the parties submitted costs submissions.

The court found that success was divided and ordered that no costs be awarded to either party.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel production of a medical report following a defence medical examination conducted by a paediatric neurologist.

The defendant refused to produce the report on the basis that the examination was incomplete and that the expert could not provide a fair and objective opinion due to the circumstances of the assessment and subsequent interview.

The court considered Rule 33.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires an examining health practitioner to prepare and provide a written report after conducting an examination.

The court held that once the examination occurred, the rule imposed a mandatory obligation to produce a report, regardless of concerns about completeness.

The expert could qualify the report and explain limitations, but production remained required.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add their own automobile insurer as a defendant after learning during discoveries that the defendants were uninsured.

The proposed insurer argued the limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 had expired and that the plaintiffs failed to exercise due diligence in discovering the lack of insurance.

The court held that the plaintiffs had provided some evidence of due diligence in attempting to determine whether the defendants were insured, including inquiries to potential insurers and communications with the defendants.

Applying the principles governing amendments and the discoverability doctrine, the court concluded there was a triable issue as to when the plaintiffs discovered or ought to have discovered the lack of insurance.

The amendment was permitted, with leave granted to the insurer to plead a limitations defence.

The accused was charged with robbery and using an imitation firearm following a jewelry store hold-up by two men.

The Crown's case relied on eyewitness identification from a photo lineup and DNA found on a baseball cap left at the scene, which the Crown alleged was worn by the other perpetrator.

The defence called an alibi witness who testified the accused was with her at the time of the offence.

The court found the alibi evidence, while not fully believed, raised a reasonable doubt.

The court also noted frailties in the eyewitness identification and found the circumstantial DNA evidence insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence.

The accused was acquitted.

The respondent brought a motion to vary prior support orders seeking termination of spousal support, reduction of child support, and elimination of certain section 7 expenses based on an alleged reduction in income.

The applicant conceded termination of spousal support but sought a later termination date, an increase in child support, and additional section 7 expenses including private school tuition and tutoring.

The court found the evidence insufficient to establish a material change in the respondent’s income and maintained the previously determined income for child support purposes.

The court terminated spousal support effective April 30, 2012, removed the respondent’s obligation to contribute to nanny expenses, and declined to order contributions for private school tuition or tutoring as necessary section 7 expenses.

The court also reduced the life insurance security amount following termination of spousal support.

Following a trial in a family law dispute, the court determined the issue of costs after mixed success on the merits.

The applicant succeeded in obtaining spousal support but failed to establish the validity of the parties’ marriage, resulting in dismissal of her equalization claim.

The respondent successfully argued the marriage was invalid but failed to provide adequate and timely financial disclosure during the proceedings.

The court held that the respondent’s disclosure failures disentitled him to any costs and awarded the applicant partial costs reflecting her limited success.

The applicant was awarded reduced fees and disbursements given that her primary property claim was unsuccessful.

During a criminal proceeding involving charges of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and conspiracy, the accused requested interpretation in the Ibo language.

A voir dire was conducted to determine whether two proposed interpreters were competent to interpret for the accused during the upcoming jury trial.

The court considered the constitutional right to interpretation under s. 14 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and reviewed guidance from appellate authority concerning interpreter competency.

After examining the interpreters’ accreditation status, training, testing results, and courtroom experience, the court found that neither candidate met the required standard of competency for a Superior Court criminal trial.

The court held that the presumption of incompetence for non‑accredited interpreters had not been rebutted and directed that other qualified interpreters be sought.