V. Jennifer Mackinnon

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed attendant care and housekeeping benefits for services provided by his former wife, daughter, and a lawn care company.

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the caregivers did not sustain an 'economic loss' as required by s. 3(7)(e) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

A FSCO arbitrator and Director's Delegate upheld the denial, finding that mere loss of time did not constitute an economic loss.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness, despite the concurrent jurisdiction of courts and arbitrators under the Insurance Act, and found the Delegate's interpretation of 'economic loss' as requiring a financial or pecuniary loss to be reasonable.

Both parties sought costs following a motion and cross-motion regarding disclosure and the pre-trial sale of properties, both of which were dismissed.

The applicant sought costs based on the respondent's misleading statements in a previous affidavit regarding the purchase of a property.

The court found that the respondent's conduct in delivering a misleading affidavit warranted an adverse costs award, but reduced the amount due to the applicant's own unreasonable conduct in refusing a settlement offer.

The applicant was awarded $1,000 in costs.

In a family property dispute arising from unmarried cohabitation, the applicant sought compensation for labour and monetary contributions to three properties held solely in the respondent's name.

The court found the parties separated in December 2011, so the unjust enrichment claim was not statute-barred under the ordinary two-year limitation period running from separation.

Applying the unjust enrichment framework and the joint family venture approach, the court held the respondent retained a disproportionate share of equity generated through the parties' combined efforts and expenditures.

A proprietary remedy was unnecessary because a monetary award was adequate.

Judgment issued for $20,000 plus pre-judgment interest at 3% from January 1, 2012.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully opposing the respondent's motion regarding a jointly retained expert.

The applicant had made three offers to settle the motion, which the respondent rejected.

The court declined to evaluate the fairness of the proposed terms for a joint retainer, noting that such terms must be acceptable to both parties and cannot be imposed by the court.

Consequently, the court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs fixed at $16,380.

The applicant and respondent both brought motions seeking the interim sale or transfer of two jointly owned properties—the matrimonial home and a rental property—prior to trial.

The court found that ordering a sale on an interim basis would be premature and could prejudice potential claims for the transfer of property to satisfy equalization payments under section 9 of the Family Law Act.

The court also dismissed the respondent's request for the release of trust funds to reimburse a disputed debt.

Both motions were dismissed.

Following a ten-year marriage, the court resolved equalization, income determination, alleged step-parent support obligations, spousal support, and occupation rent.

Applying the governing framework for whether a spouse stands in the place of a parent, the court held the applicant's relationship with the respondent's children was derivative of the marital relationship and did not amount to a parental role, so the child support claim was dismissed.

The court rejected portions of the applicant's financial evidence, drew adverse inferences from disclosure failures, and fixed support income above reported tax income for several years.

The respondent obtained an equalization payment, lump sum transitional spousal support, occupation rent, and prejudgment interest, and the matrimonial home was ordered sold unless the parties completed a buyout.

This was a family costs endorsement following the applicant's partial success on a motion for leave to appeal a temporary child support order.

The court declined full indemnity because leave had not been granted on all issues and some fees were excessive, but treated the respondent's failure to voluntarily meet child support obligations as unreasonable litigation conduct.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis at $8,500 all inclusive.

In a family property motion, the respondent sought an order requiring a jointly retained business valuator to expand his mandate to calculate notional income tax liabilities and provide alternative valuation opinions, and alternatively sought to use another expert retained by the applicant.

The court held that the Family Law Rules concerning expert duties and court-appointed experts did not authorize the court to enlarge a joint retainer without both parties' consent or compel an expert to act in a conflict position.

The court also rejected the argument that the expert-duty provisions altered the traditional role of experts, relying on appellate authority confirming those rules merely restated existing common law duties.

The motion was dismissed.

This was a family costs endorsement following a three-day trial in which most issues had already been resolved by partial minutes of settlement and only four narrowly defined parenting issues remained.

The party seeking costs was more successful on the issues tried, but not entirely successful, and the court found both parents had conducted the litigation reasonably.

The court also emphasized that it had made some orders neither party had requested in order to address ongoing parenting dynamics and had remained seized of the matter for one year.

Full recovery was denied and costs were fixed at $15,000 plus the assessor's trial attendance disbursement of $2,750, payable in monthly instalments.

On a family law motion to change a final parenting order, the moving party sought to terminate or suspend the father's access based on the children's anxiety and refusal to attend visits.

The court found a material change in circumstances arising from prolonged parental conflict, the children's increased exposure to that conflict, and their age and expressed preferences.

The court also found evidence that some of the children's negative views were independently held, but that other views had been seriously influenced by the mother.

A final variation was declined; instead, the court made a temporary order reinstating access on graduated terms, requiring both parents to attend a parenting after separation program, and directing a Voice of the Children report.

The applicant sought an extension of time and leave to appeal an interlocutory family order dismissing her motion for retroactive child support and failing to specify ongoing child support under the Child Support Guidelines.

The court held there was conflicting Ontario authority and good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge’s omission to award any child support for the period after the application was issued, and his failure to determine the amount payable under the new parenting arrangement.

Leave was refused with respect to the purely retroactive portion of the claim before the application issued and the request for full table support for the first period in the particular circumstances.

Leave to appeal was also granted on costs because the original costs award had been made without submissions.

In a costs decision following an unsuccessful summary judgment motion in a catastrophic personal injury action, the court declined to reserve costs to the trial judge.

Applying the usual principle that costs follow the cause and the discretionary factors under Rule 57, the court held there was no divided success and no basis to depart from the ordinary rule.

The moving defendant was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs to both responding parties, with modest reductions to claimed time and an additional amount for the cost-fixing submissions.

The applicant and respondent dentists operated a joint venture general dentistry practice.

The respondent returned to school to become a specialist, reducing his hours but maintaining his draw.

The applicant gave 90 days' written notice to terminate the joint venture.

When the parties could not agree on the mechanics of separation, the applicant sought a declaration of termination and sole ownership.

The court granted the application, declaring the joint venture terminated effective June 30, 2014, ordering the respondent to vacate the practice, and directing the parties to proceed with a valuation and buyout of the respondent's interest.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory family law decision concerning child support and the calculation of parenting time under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court found procedural deficiencies, including that the motion for leave to appeal was brought outside the time permitted under the Rules of Civil Procedure without a request for an extension and that no formal order had been taken out from the underlying decision.

The court emphasized that appellate jurisdiction arises only once an order is signed and entered, and that reasons alone cannot be appealed.

Given the absence of a formal order and uncertainty regarding the precise terms of the motion judge’s decision, the court postponed determination of the leave motion pending settlement and entry of the order.

Following a family law motion concerning amendments to pleadings, interim access, child support, section 7 expenses, and a request for a voice of the children report, both parties sought costs.

The court found that the applicant was the more successful party on the motion and cross‑motion, although not fully successful.

The respondent’s cross‑motion largely failed or was premature, while the applicant obtained partial relief on access and maintained the existing level of child support pending adjournment of other issues.

Considering the parties’ settlement offers and partial success, the court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings and for security for costs due to his failure to comply with multiple temporary orders regarding spousal support, costs, and financial disclosure.

The court held that leave was not required to bring the motion despite the case being listed for trial, as the motion sought to enforce compliance essential to a fair trial.

The court ordered the respondent to comply with specific disclosure and payment obligations within 21 days, failing which his pleadings would be struck.

The court also granted the applicant a $50,000 security interest in the respondent's property for costs.

The applicant sought habeas corpus with certiorari in aid, arguing that the transitional provisions of the Abolition of Early Parole Act violated Charter rights by depriving him of accelerated parole review.

The applicant had committed the offence before the repeal of the accelerated parole regime but was sentenced after the repeal came into force.

The court considered whether the repeal constituted a change in punishment contrary to s. 11(i) of the Charter and whether the applicant had a settled expectation of liberty based on the earlier regime.

The court held that an offender’s expectation of liberty crystallizes at sentencing, not at the time of the offence.

Because the applicant was sentenced after the repeal of accelerated parole review, the prospective application of the repeal did not constitute punishment or violate the Charter.

A federal inmate applied for habeas corpus with certiorari in aid, alleging that the abolition of accelerated parole review under the Abolition of Early Parole Act violated rights under ss. 7, 10, 11(i), and 24(1) of the Charter.

The applicant argued that his eligibility for accelerated parole review should be determined by the date of the offence rather than the sentencing date.

The court declined to review decisions of the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board, holding that a comprehensive statutory review mechanism already existed.

It further found that the repeal of accelerated parole review did not violate the applicant’s Charter rights because parole eligibility does not constitute punishment and the applicant had no constitutionally protected expectation of liberty based on the repealed regime.

The application for habeas corpus and related relief was dismissed.

The City of Ottawa appealed an arbitration award that found it breached a 2004 Minutes of Settlement with Coliseum Inc. regarding the relocation of Coliseum's dome operations from Frank Clair Stadium.

The arbitrator had awarded Coliseum $2,240,000 in damages.

The Superior Court of Justice granted leave to appeal, finding the arbitrator made extricable errors of law in interpreting the settlement agreement and in applying the doctrines of waiver and promissory estoppel.

Applying a reasonableness standard of review, the court held the arbitrator's interpretation was unreasonable and inconsistent with the facts.

The appeal was allowed and the arbitration award was set aside.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary orders regarding custody, access, child and spousal support, and the disposition of jointly owned properties.

The court granted the mother temporary legal custody of the 11-year-old child and crafted a detailed access schedule to accommodate the father's rolling shift work.

The court ordered the father to pay child support and spousal support at the high end of the SSAG range, retroactive to the issuance of the application.

The mother's claim for exclusive possession of a rental property was dismissed, and the property was ordered sold as it did not meet the definition of a matrimonial home at the date of separation.