Thomas G. Chalmers

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion for interim spousal support.

The applicant claimed $19,933.50 plus HST, while the respondent argued costs should be limited to $4,500.

The court found the applicant was presumptively entitled to costs and that her offers to settle were closer to the final order, though they did not trigger the automatic costs consequences of Rule 18(14).

The court fixed the applicant's costs at $15,000 plus HST, for a total of $16,950, noting the complexity of determining the respondent's income.

The party seeking costs was largely successful in setting aside notices of garnishment issued for child support and section 7 expenses.

He sought costs of $9,568.74 on a full-indemnity basis, while the opposing party argued for no costs or a maximum of $350.

The court noted that both parties lost focus on proportionality, expending time and effort disproportionate to the issues at stake.

Finding the opposing party's conduct unreasonable but not rising to bad faith, the court awarded fixed costs of $2,500.

On an interim family law motion, the applicant sought spousal support from a high-income self-employed respondent whose income flowed through a corporation.

The court undertook a detailed interim analysis of corporate income, added back portions of motor vehicle and entertainment expenses, deducted prior spousal support and grossed-up notional child support for children in the respondent’s care, and declined broader corporate adjustments better left to trial.

The court also drew an adverse inference from the applicant’s failure to file medical evidence supporting total inability to work and imputed modest income to her starting in 2014.

Interim spousal support was ordered retroactively to separation at varying monthly amounts for 2013, 2014, and prospectively for 2015, with credit for amounts already paid and arrears payable within ten days.

In a garnishment hearing arising from a family support order, the court considered whether notices of garnishment could enforce disputed section 7 expenses and future periodic child support out of trust funds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court held that section 7 amounts must be readily ascertainable and undisputed before garnishment may issue, and set aside the garnishment relating to hockey and university expenses because prior notice, consent, and complete supporting disclosure had not been established.

The court nevertheless permitted the amount already garnished for university expenses to be retained as a credit against the payor’s eventual obligation.

Although garnishment may attach future periodic child support under Rule 29, the court directed that no further amounts be garnished in the circumstances.

The applicant sought judicial review of a preliminary decision by the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding its jurisdiction to hear a complaint.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for prematurity, applying the principle that courts should not interfere with ongoing administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances.

The court found no exceptional circumstances and noted that the applicant could challenge jurisdiction on a full record after a decision on the merits.

The stay of proceedings was lifted.

The applicant purchased a colour sorting machine for agricultural use that failed to perform to specifications within the first ten days of use.

Despite actual notice, the dealer and distributor failed to repair the machine, replace it, or terminate the sale agreement as required by the Farm Implements Act.

The Tribunal ordered the termination of the sale agreement and directed the distributor and dealer to refund the purchase price to the applicant.

The applicant purchased a colour sorting machine and subsequently sought a refund under the Farm Implements Act, alleging the machine failed to perform to specifications.

The dealer brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing the machine was not a farm implement, there was no evidence of specifications, it had no obligation to refund, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to make monetary awards.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for a hearing on the first three grounds, and concluding it had both explicit and implicit statutory authority to grant remedial orders, including refunds.