Thomas Hunter

Following a 10-day trial regarding parenting time and a request for a permanent restraining order, both parties sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $37,000.

The court found that neither party was entirely successful, as the applicant did not obtain a restraining order or a no-parenting-time order, and the respondent did not obtain the parenting time recommended by the OCL.

Furthermore, the court determined that both parties behaved unreasonably during the litigation, negatively impacting the child.

Consequently, the court declined to award costs to either party.

In a trial continuation regarding parenting time and a restraining order, the court considered the father's request for unsupervised parenting time with his youngest child and the mother's request for a final restraining order.

The court found that the father had engaged in family violence and struggled with emotional control, while the mother had failed to actively encourage the child's relationship with the father.

The court ordered the father to attend individual therapy and reunification counselling before commencing supervised parenting time.

The mother's request for a final restraining order was dismissed, but a no-contact order was issued under the Children's Law Reform Act.

Following an uncontested trial where the applicant was entirely successful, the applicant sought full indemnity costs.

The court found that the respondent's litigation conduct was unreasonable, motivated by bad faith, and intended to inflict financial and emotional harm.

The applicant had also made two offers to settle that were more favourable than the trial outcome.

The court awarded the applicant full indemnity costs in the amount of $121,285.48.

In an uncontested family law trial, the applicant sought a divorce, enforcement of a prenuptial agreement, repayment of loans, a vesting order for the respondent's watch collection, and a final restraining order.

The court found the prenuptial agreement valid and binding, confirming the applicant's sole ownership of her home.

The court ordered the respondent to repay over $41,000 in loans and $19,000 for unreturned rings.

Due to the respondent's history of non-compliance with court orders, the court vested ownership of his watch collection in the applicant to offset his debts.

A five-year restraining order was also granted due to a documented history of physical and emotional abuse.

The applicant brought a motion on the first day of trial to strike the respondent's Answer due to his repeated failure to comply with court orders and the Family Law Rules.

The respondent had failed to provide sworn financial statements, failed to pay outstanding costs awards, failed to abide by timelines, and served hundreds of irrelevant documents on the eve of trial.

The court applied the three-pronged test for striking pleadings and found that the respondent's conduct was willful, vexatious, and wasteful.

The court struck the respondent's Answer and limited his participation in the trial to cross-examination and closing submissions, conditional upon his payment of outstanding costs.

Following the applicant's successful motion for exclusive possession of the family home and a temporary restraining order, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis, relying on an offer to settle.

The court found the applicant was entitled to costs on a substantial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer to settle, and on a full indemnity basis thereafter.

After reducing the claimed hours for being excessive, the court fixed the costs payable by the respondent at $22,900.

The parties in a family law matter submitted costs submissions several months after the extended deadline ordered by the court, without providing any explanation for the delay.

The judge, who was in his final sitting week before retirement and had already disposed of his notes, refused to consider the late submissions.

The judge directed counsel to take the matter up with the Local Administrative Judge for Family or the Regional Senior Judge if they wished to pursue it further.

Opposition to a bankrupt’s discharge under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act by both the trustee and a former spouse creditor.

The court found numerous breaches of the bankrupt’s statutory duties, including failure to disclose assets, failure to keep the trustee informed of his address, and failure to provide required financial documentation.

The bankrupt had also reaffirmed a vehicle loan post‑bankruptcy while retaining the benefit of the vehicle but then ceased making payments, leaving a co‑obligor exposed.

The court held that reaffirmation of a debt through conduct during bankruptcy may render the debtor liable notwithstanding the bankruptcy.

Given the misconduct, the court granted a conditional discharge requiring payment to the trustee and permitting the opposing creditor to pursue reimbursement relating to the reaffirmed vehicle loan.

The applicant sought various parenting, support, and enforcement orders following the respondent’s failure to comply with disclosure obligations and court orders, resulting in his pleadings being struck and the matter proceeding as an uncontested trial.

The court addressed issues including custody, access, retroactive child support, extraordinary expenses, imputation of income, life insurance security, relocation, and restraining relief.

Applying the best interests of the child under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court declined to terminate access entirely but ordered supervised access at the discretion of the custodial parent and guided by professional recommendations.

The court ordered retroactive child support, retroactive special and extraordinary expenses, ongoing child support based on imputed income due to the respondent’s failure to disclose income information, and repayment of joint debt.

Requests for a restraining order and vesting orders were denied.