Thomas A. Bielby

Following a successful application, the applicant sought a costs award on a partial indemnity basis.

The claimed costs totalled $13,765.83, including legal fees and disbursements.

The respondents did not oppose the request and acknowledged the reasonableness of the submissions.

After reviewing the Bill of Costs, the court found the amounts reasonable and awarded the full amount sought.

Following a Sikh religious wedding ceremony conducted without a marriage licence or registration under the Marriage Act, the applicant sought equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The central issue was whether the marriage could be deemed valid under s. 31 of the Marriage Act based on good‑faith intention to comply with Ontario law.

The court found the applicant failed to prove she intended compliance with the Marriage Act at the time of the ceremony and therefore the marriage was not valid for purposes of equalization under the Family Law Act.

The court nevertheless considered hypothetical equalization calculations and ultimately dismissed the property claim.

Spousal support was awarded based on the parties’ cohabitation and income disparity.

The accused applied to exclude drug evidence and statements obtained following a police stop and search of his vehicle, alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

Police detained the accused based on a complaint that a suspicious individual had collected a package delivered by Canada Post and later located the accused’s vehicle.

Officers searched the trunk and opened the package before arrest, discovering heroin.

The court held the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest at the time of the search and that the detention was arbitrary and exceeded the permissible scope of investigative detention.

Finding serious Charter violations and applying the s. 24(2) analysis, the court excluded the drug evidence and the accused’s post‑detention utterances.

The accused applied for certiorari to quash a preliminary inquiry committal to stand trial for offences relating to a large marijuana grow operation.

He argued there was insufficient evidence linking him to the property and insufficient evidence that the seized plants were marijuana because no certificate of analysis had been filed.

Applying the standard articulated in R. v. Arcuri, the court held that the reviewing judge’s role is limited to determining whether there was any evidence upon which the preliminary inquiry judge could conclude the evidence was sufficient to commit the accused to trial.

The court found there was some circumstantial evidence connecting the accused to the property and vehicles observed at the grow operation, and some evidence identifying the seized plants as marijuana based on the officer’s observations and experience.

As a result, the application to quash the committal was dismissed.

A creditor sought relief under s. 248 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act after obtaining default judgment against a debtor corporation that ceased operations and whose business activities were effectively continued through a newly incorporated company.

The court found that the debtor corporation’s director and spouse transferred business operations, assets, employees, and goodwill to the new entity immediately after garnishment proceedings in order to avoid satisfying the judgment.

Applying the oppression remedy framework articulated in BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders, the court held that a creditor has a reasonable expectation that a debtor corporation will not take steps to hinder satisfaction of a judgment.

The conduct of transferring the business to a new corporation controlled by the same individuals was found to be oppressive and unfairly prejudicial.

The individuals and the new corporation were held jointly and severally liable for the outstanding judgment.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing their motion to expunge references to an inadvertently disclosed privileged email from the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The plaintiff, a former employee, had received an email from management to the company's lawyers discussing her termination, which prompted her to claim wrongful dismissal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's conclusion that preserving the privilege would be unfair to the plaintiff, as the email fundamentally affected her state of mind and formed the basis of her claim.

Following dismissal of a medical malpractice action arising from a broken jaw allegedly caused during wisdom tooth extraction, the successful defendant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The trial lasted six days and involved competing expert evidence regarding negligence and liability, including a contested voir dire on the qualification of the plaintiffs’ expert.

The court accepted the defendant’s expert evidence and found the defendant entirely successful at trial.

Considering the length of the proceeding, the expert evidence, and the discounted fee claim, the court found the requested costs reasonable.

Costs were awarded to the defendant in the amount of $63,800 all inclusive.

Following an earlier endorsement that did not address costs, counsel for the applicant requested that the court determine the costs of a motion.

The court reviewed the prior endorsement and noted that the issue underlying the motion involved findings of credibility regarding settled intention.

Given that credibility determinations would ultimately be made at trial, the court declined to determine costs at this stage.

Instead, costs of the motion were reserved to the trial judge.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, assault, and uttering threats against his wife.

The charges arose from incidents occurring between 1997 and 2010.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility, rejecting the accused's evidence due to material misrepresentations.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence regarding most of the incidents, finding the accused guilty of two counts of sexual assault, two counts of assault, and one count of uttering threats.

The accused was acquitted of one count of sexual assault from 1997 due to reasonable doubt arising from delayed disclosure and inconsistencies.

Following an earlier decision striking the plaintiff’s statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs after being completely successful on its motion.

The self-represented plaintiff responded by focusing on the merits of the underlying claim rather than the costs issue.

The court held that the defendant was entitled to costs under Rule 57 and found the submitted bill of costs reasonable.

Following a motion concerning custody and access, the successful party sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court considered the effect of an earlier offer to settle that met or exceeded the terms of the final order granting custody and access arrangements.

The court found the moving party had been successful and had achieved at least the terms of the offer.

Although no bad faith was established, the offer to settle justified enhanced costs.

Costs were awarded on a full indemnity basis for expenses incurred after the offer to settle.

Following two competing family law motions involving interim support, parenting access, and related corollary relief issues, the court determined costs.

The applicant had been more successful overall, obtaining spousal and child support, although she did not receive the interim disbursement requested and did not meet or exceed the terms of her settlement offer.

The court also noted that issues of conduct and bad faith were difficult to determine at the interim stage and did not affect the analysis.

Applying a partial indemnity approach and recognizing divided success, the court awarded costs to the applicant.

The plaintiff suffered a fractured jaw and permanent nerve damage during the extraction of a wisdom tooth by the defendant oral surgeon.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action alleging the surgery was unnecessary, lack of informed consent, and negligence in the extraction procedure.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the extraction was necessary, the defendant adequately disclosed the risks, and the defendant met the standard of care during the surgery.

The court preferred the evidence of the defendant's expert and found that a jaw fracture can occur even with the use of minimal force.

Following a bifurcated family law trial addressing custody, access, child support, and property equalization, the court determined outstanding issues relating to the respondent’s joint investment accounts and costs.

The applicant argued that the court had made a mistake in attributing 100% of the value of certain joint accounts to the respondent at the date of marriage while attributing only 50% ownership at the date of separation.

The court declined to amend the order under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules, finding the date-of-marriage values were entered on consent and not the result of an obvious mistake.

On costs, the court found the applicant largely successful on the custody issues but that success on property and support issues was divided.

Costs were therefore awarded to the applicant only for the first portion of the bifurcated trial.

A police officer was charged with perjury, obstructing justice, and breach of trust arising from testimony he gave in Provincial Offences Court during a traffic prosecution.

The officer had testified that he personally obtained and wrote a cautioned statement from a motorist, when in fact another officer had written the statement.

The court accepted that the testimony was objectively false but found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer intentionally misled the court or knew the statement was false at the time he testified.

Evidence showed multiple administrative errors by other officers and the prosecutor, and the accused plausibly believed he had taken the statement after discovering the original document in his file while testifying months later.

The court concluded the false testimony resulted from a mistaken assumption rather than deliberate deception.

The parties brought cross-motions for interim relief.

The applicant sought interim child and spousal support, while the respondent sought an access order, severance of the divorce, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court ordered interim child support for one minor child and one adult child attending university, and fixed the respondent's income at $300,000 for the purpose of interim spousal support.

The court granted the respondent reasonable access to the minor child, severed the divorce from corollary issues, and deferred the issue of selling the matrimonial home.

Following dismissal of a motion by several defendants seeking leave to appeal an earlier order, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The successful party sought $6,358.23 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, while the opposing parties argued that $2,800.00 was appropriate.

The court held that the opposing parties’ costs submissions were excessive and lacked a breakdown supporting their proposed amount.

Applying partial indemnity principles and reviewing counsel’s docketed time, the court found a fee of $4,500.00 to be reasonable and fixed total costs accordingly.

A custody and access motion concerning two children following the parties’ separation.

The respondent sought joint custody in order to participate in decision‑making, while the applicant sought sole custody due to ongoing conflict and inability to cooperate.

The court considered the children’s views and wishes through submissions from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and assessed the parents’ ability to communicate and make joint decisions.

Finding that the parties could not cooperate sufficiently to support joint custody, the court granted sole custody to the applicant with consultation rights to the respondent.

A structured access regime was ordered, including midweek access, with the older child permitted discretion regarding time spent with the respondent.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01 to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action and as an abuse of process.

The self‑represented plaintiff alleged professional negligence against a counselling services provider whose counsellor had allegedly advised his partner in a manner that ended their relationship.

The court held that neither the counsellor nor the employer owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, applying the principles articulated in Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd. and Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v. B.D. The court further found that the substance of the claim alleged interference with a familial relationship, a tort not recognized in Canada.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

A family law trial addressing financial issues following separation, including child support obligations, section 7 expenses, property equalization, and ancillary parenting matters.

The court considered whether a step-parent standing in loco parentis should pay full guideline child support for a child with a living biological father who was not pursued for support.

Applying section 5 of the Child Support Guidelines, the court reduced the step-parent’s support obligation for that child while ordering full guideline support for the parties’ biological child.

The court also allocated section 7 expenses including child care, dental costs, and post-secondary education contributions, and resolved numerous equalization disputes concerning investment accounts, vehicles, and other assets.

An equalization payment was ordered and a divorce judgment granted.