W. Abbott

The plaintiff was successful on a motion to extend the time to bring her claim under the Succession Law Reform Act and sought costs of $4,050.21.

The defendant opposed, arguing the plaintiff's delay necessitated the motion.

The court declined to award costs, finding that the plaintiff was the author of her own misfortune by failing to act within the statutory limitation period, making it unfair to hold the defendant responsible for the costs of the motion.

The plaintiff widow brought a motion for leave to extend the time to bring a dependant's relief claim against her late husband's estate under s. 61(2) of the Succession Law Reform Act, and to transfer the action.

The estate opposed the extension, citing an unexplained delay.

The court granted the motion, finding that despite the lack of explanation for the delay, there was no non-compensable prejudice to the estate, as the main asset (the matrimonial home) remained undistributed and was subject to an ongoing partition and sale application.

The respondent husband brought a motion to transfer a family law application for spousal support and equalization from Kingston to North Bay.

The applicant wife had properly commenced the application in Kingston, where she resided.

The court applied the test for transferring venue, requiring the moving party to demonstrate that the proposed venue is substantially better.

The court found that the husband's reasons, including his business location, family property, and childcare responsibilities, did not outweigh the significant difficulty a transfer would pose for the wife.

The motion was dismissed.

Following motions for exclusive possession, parenting, and support, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $35,000, while the respondent argued no costs should be awarded due to divided success.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party overall, having succeeded on exclusive possession and the choice of assessor, though success was divided on parenting and support.

Accounting for the divided success and an unnecessary first attendance, the court awarded the applicant costs of $12,000.

The husband sought costs of a motion and cross-motion that settled shortly after a case conference.

The wife had taken extreme and unyielding positions, including demanding supervised access and triple the voluntary financial support, which prompted a costly response from the husband.

The court found that the wife needed to understand the financial consequences of taking such positions to the courtroom steps.

The husband was awarded $20,000 in partial indemnity costs, payable in instalments.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final consent order, seeking recalculated spousal support, child support, and section 7 expenses for 2015, 2016, and 2018.

The parties reached a partial consent agreement regarding ongoing child support and section 7 expenses.

The court determined the parties' incomes and calculated the arrears and overpayments.

The court found the father underpaid child support and section 7 expenses, but overpaid spousal support.

The mother was ordered to repay the spousal support overpayment in monthly installments.

The applicant wife sought to set aside a cohabitation agreement executed shortly before the parties purchased a home and later married.

The agreement provided that each party would retain their initial contribution to the home and share the remaining equity 70/30 in favour of the respondent husband.

The applicant argued she did not understand the nature and consequences of the agreement and received inadequate independent legal advice.

The court found the independent legal advice was deficient but concluded the applicant was not under duress, the terms were not unconscionable, and the respondent did not take advantage of her.

The court declined to set aside the agreement.