T. Maddalena

The applicant sought a review of his bail detention order under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

He argued the detaining justice erred in law due to technical difficulties during the hearing and by relying on his COVID-19 diagnosis, and alternatively that his subsequent negative test and new release plan constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding no error in law as the applicant was detained on secondary grounds due to numerous serious breaches of court orders and a lengthy criminal record.

The court also found the proposed release plan lacked adequate supervision and did not constitute a material change in circumstances.

The parties brought three competing motions in a family law proceeding, primarily dealing with financial disclosure and property issues.

The court ordered the applicant to provide specific financial documents, including an Equifax report, loan details, and a 2014 Notice of Assessment.

However, the court dismissed several requests regarding the valuation, repair, and sale of a jointly-owned 2010 Acura MDX, as well as the distribution of insurance proceeds, finding these to be triable issues related to the equalization of net family property that should not be dealt with on an interim motion.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.

The moving party mother brought a contempt motion against the responding party father for withholding her parenting time under a prior court order.

The father had discovered the mother unresponsive in bed with empty vodka bottles while the children were in her care, prompting him to remove the children and call 911.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the father's actions were justified, protective of the children, and not a willful or deliberate breach of the order given the mother's history of severe alcoholism.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion regarding access to the parties' two children during the COVID-19 suspension of regular court operations.

The triage judge reviewed the electronic materials and determined the matter was not urgent, as there were no concerns regarding the safety of the children or a parent.

The motion was adjourned to set a case conference date.

The respondent mother brought a motion to stay the applicant father's motion to change his access from supervised to unsupervised.

A previous court order set out numerous preconditions the father had to meet before bringing such a motion, including completing parenting and anger management programs.

The court found that the father had not strictly complied with several of these preconditions.

As a result, the father's motion to change was stayed and his other procedural motions were dismissed.

The applicant was the successful party in a motion/trial of an issue to determine the date of separation.

The applicant sought costs of $14,245, while the respondent suggested an award of $3,500 to $4,000.

The court found the applicant's claimed hours to be excessive and disproportionate to the single issue before the court.

Applying the factors in Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, the court fixed costs at $5,000 all inclusive, payable by the respondent.

The respondent mother brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole custody of the two children and child support.

The applicant father, who had a history of substance abuse and had recently relapsed, also sought sole custody.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the father had not seen the children in over a year, failed to exercise previously ordered supervised access, and provided insufficient evidence of drug treatment.

Summary judgment was granted, awarding sole custody to the mother, supervised access to the father, and ordering the father to pay child support.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $15,172.25 following its success on a motion brought by the moving party to stay a finding of contempt.

The moving party argued costs should be reduced because the plaintiff was unsuccessful on its oral motion for a finding of contempt against an individual personally.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs due to the failed oral motion, but awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $11,000.

Following an 11-day family law trial, the successful applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis.

The self-represented respondent failed to provide costs submissions.

The court found the respondent's conduct unreasonable, as he insisted on unsupported positions and a trial despite the applicant's reasonable offer to settle.

The court awarded the applicant $54,000 in costs, with one-third enforceable as support.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, the respondent mother brought a motion seeking a payout from the children's RESP to cover the eldest daughter's student debt, transfer of the RESP control to herself, and a variation of the father's access to the youngest child based on OCL recommendations.

The applicant father opposed the relief and brought his own motion for access.

The court ordered one-third of the RESP funds to be paid out for the daughter's debt and transferred the remainder to the mother as trustee, finding jurisdiction to deal with RESPs on an interim basis.

The court declined to vary the existing access schedule pending trial but ordered the father not to enter the mother's property or record access exchanges.

Following the dismissal of the moving party's motion, the responding party sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle and allegations of improper conduct.

The court found that the offer to settle did not strictly comply with Rule 49.10(1) because it included undeterminable costs, and the moving party's conduct was not reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous.

Applying the principles of fair and reasonable costs, the court reduced the responding party's claimed hours for preparation and awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $27,000.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion seeking certiorari, mandamus, and Charter relief to overturn a Justice of the Peace's interlocutory decision refusing to dismiss charges under the Conservation Authorities Act and the Building Code Act.

The applicant argued the charges for building an unauthorized deck were statute-barred and constituted double jeopardy because he was previously acquitted of charges relating to a solar panel array on the same property.

The Superior Court dismissed the motion, finding the deck construction was a separate incident, the Green Energy Act did not provide an exemption, and there was no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice to justify prerogative relief mid-proceeding.

Following a motion where the plaintiff was successful, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles of reasonableness and proportionality.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $1,588.60.

The defendants were successful on a motion to set aside an earlier order regarding a Notice of Sale under Mortgage, as the plaintiffs had provided materially incorrect information to the court.

The court found the plaintiffs were careless and reckless in failing to verify the alleged mortgage default, even after the defendants provided clear evidence of payment.

Applying the principles of reasonableness, fairness, and proportionality, the court awarded the defendants costs fixed at $30,500 inclusive.

Following a successful summary judgment motion where the plaintiff was awarded $153,241.40, the plaintiff sought full indemnity costs of $15,674.22 based on a contractual right.

The individual defendant argued costs should be fixed on a partial indemnity basis at $7,500.

Applying the principles from Boucher and Rule 57.01, the court found the plaintiff's hours slightly excessive for the complexity of the matter and fixed costs at $10,500.00, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.

The plaintiff brought a motion for security for costs against the defendant regarding the defendant's appeal of a Deputy Judge's decision.

The court applied Rule 61.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assessing whether there was good reason to believe the appeal was frivolous and vexatious and whether the defendant had insufficient assets in Ontario.

Finding that the appeal had minimal prospect of success and that there was no evidence of sufficient assets to pay costs, the court ordered the defendant to pay $8,000 into court as security for costs.

The plaintiff credit union brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate defendant and the individual defendant based on a small business credit agreement and a personal guarantee.

The corporate defendant conceded liability.

The individual defendant argued her liability was limited to 25% of the loan based on alleged misrepresentations by the plaintiff's advisor.

The court found the guarantee was clearly unlimited and the defendant had not read the documents or sought independent legal advice.

Summary judgment was granted against both defendants for the full outstanding amount.

Following the release of a decision on the merits, the successful applicant sought substantial indemnity costs of $20,209.81.

The respondent argued for no costs or, alternatively, costs fixed at $8,000.

Applying Rule 57.01(1) and the principles from Boucher, the court found the issues were not complex but were important to the applicant.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the applicant fixed at $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following a garnishment hearing where the applicant was completely successful, the court determined the costs payable by the respondent.

The applicant sought $20,000, while the respondent proposed $7,500.

The court considered the offers to settle, noting the applicant's offer did not strictly comply with the timing rules but the respondent failed to accept it.

Applying the principle that costs should be fair and reasonable, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant costs fixed at $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant sought to enforce spousal support arrears through a notice of garnishment issued to three major banks.

The respondent filed a notice of dispute.

The banks provided inadequate or incomprehensible responses to the garnishment notices, despite the respondent's financial statement indicating he held assets at these institutions.

The court adjourned the garnishment hearing and ordered representatives from the three banks to attend the next hearing.