Wendy L. MacPherson

Following a jury trial in a motor vehicle personal injury action where liability was admitted and damages were awarded, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiffs sought over $365,000 in fees and disbursements, including substantial indemnity costs after an offer to settle.

The defendant conceded entitlement to costs but argued the claimed fees and some disbursements were excessive.

Applying the principles under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the absence of a detailed Bill of Costs and the involvement of multiple law firms made it difficult to assess duplication and reasonableness of services.

The court reduced the requested amounts and fixed total costs, including fees, threshold motion costs, and allowable disbursements, at $157,292.57 inclusive of HST.

Following a motion to change a child support order, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving party had been successful in obtaining an order requiring the responding party to pay full table child support due to a reduction in parenting time exercised by the responding party, though she was unsuccessful on other arguments including the characterization of the prior order and certain claimed s. 7 expenses.

Applying Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court assessed success, reasonableness of the parties’ positions, offers to settle, and the time reasonably attributable to the motion.

The court found that while both parties advanced some unreasonable positions, neither acted in bad faith.

Considering partial success and proportionality, the court awarded reduced costs to the moving party.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a 2010 review order regarding child and spousal support.

The court imputed an income of $21,000 to the respondent mother, who had not yet obtained her permanent nursing license, and used the applicant's increased income of $98,335.

The court varied child support to $1,000 per month and spousal support to $800 per month, while increasing the applicant's arrears repayment rate to $200 per month due to his improved financial circumstances.

The applicant brought a motion to change a prior final order relating to child support and special expenses for three children.

The previous order required the respondent to pay 80% of the Child Support Guidelines table amount based on an expectation of extensive parenting time.

The court found a material change in circumstances because the respondent was exercising significantly less access than contemplated when the reduced support level was agreed upon.

Full table child support was ordered effective November 1, 2011 with further adjustment based on updated income figures.

Only limited section 7 expenses were allowed, including tutoring and orthodontic expenses, while most extracurricular activities were found not to qualify as extraordinary given the level of table support.

Following a successful motion to change a child support order, the applicant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis to the date of an offer to settle and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded, asserting that the applicant failed to discuss post-secondary expenses in advance and had claimed excessive amounts without proper receipts.

The court found the respondent had been unsuccessful on the substantive motion and had unreasonably opposed contributions to the child’s post-secondary education expenses despite significant income.

However, the court determined the applicant’s bill of costs was excessive given the simplicity of the matter and the hours claimed.

Applying the principles governing costs and the factors in Rule 24(11), the court awarded a reduced amount of costs.

Following a motion to change a child support order, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party was partially successful in obtaining an adjustment to child support based on increased income and a three‑year retroactive period, but failed to obtain the full relief sought and several claimed s. 7 expenses were disallowed due to lack of documentation or improper characterization.

The responding party argued the moving party had largely failed and sought costs or, alternatively, no order as to costs.

The court held the moving party was the successful party overall but reduced costs due to disclosure deficiencies and excessive claims.

Costs of $2,500 inclusive of HST were awarded to the moving party.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 1998 child support order seeking retroactive adjustment of table child support and contribution toward post-secondary and other section 7 expenses.

Applying the principles in D.B.S. regarding retroactive support, the court held that effective notice occurred in March 2011 and, absent blameworthy conduct, retroactive support could only extend three years back to March 2008.

Because one child was no longer a child of the marriage at the time of notice and the motion, retroactive support was limited to the remaining child.

The court calculated retroactive table support arrears and determined reasonable post-secondary education expenses, requiring the child to contribute and allocating the balance proportionally between the parents.

The respondent was ordered to pay arrears of table support and section 7 expenses in instalments.

The accused was convicted by a jury of multiple historical and recent sexual offences against four minor victims, including his biological daughter and step-daughter.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay two sexual assault charges.

In determining the sentence, the court analyzed the retroactivity of the Truth in Sentencing Act, concluding it did not apply to offences committed before it came into force.

The court awarded 1.5 to 1 credit for pre-sentence custody due to loss of parole eligibility and conditions.

The accused was sentenced to a total of 54 months, reduced by 42 months of pre-sentence credit, resulting in 12 months of further custody and three years of probation.

A father appealed a trial decision granting the mother sole custody of the parties’ child and providing the father with specified access.

The appeal alleged misapprehension of facts, improper evidentiary rulings excluding recorded conversations involving the child, and misapplication of the best interests test under the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The court held that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in the factual findings, credibility assessments, or application of the law.

The exclusion of secretly recorded conversations and hearsay evidence relating to a child’s alleged disclosure was within the trial judge’s discretion and consistent with policy discouraging such recordings in family litigation.

The appeal and a motion to admit fresh evidence were dismissed.

Following a successful application declaring a right of way over the respondent’s property and directing rectification of the land register, the court addressed costs after the parties failed to agree.

The applicants sought partial indemnity costs of $13,766.20.

The responding parties argued no costs should be awarded or, alternatively, that the amount claimed was excessive given the limited complexity of the matter.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, the court reduced the amount claimed due to excessive time entries and costs unrelated to the opposing respondents.

Partial indemnity costs were fixed at $9,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Costs decision following dismissal of a motion to change seeking spousal support approximately 24 years after the original proceeding.

The applicant argued each party should bear their own costs due to financial hardship and receipt of social assistance.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and confirmed that success is the starting point for determining costs.

Finding the respondent was the successful party and that the claimed legal fees were reasonable, the court awarded partial indemnity costs of $7,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicants sought declarations and rectification of land title records concerning a nine-foot right of way benefiting their property.

The court held the easement created by express grant in 1964 had not been extinguished, rejecting abandonment arguments tied to non-use and later title-description errors during conversion to land titles.

The court found the responding party had actual notice through registered descriptions and referenced plans, and was not protected as an innocent purchaser without notice.

The application was allowed, with orders directing the Land Registrar to amend the parcel registers to reflect the subsisting right of way and costs awarded to the applicants.

Following a jury trial where the defendants were found not liable for an assault on the plaintiff by other bus passengers, the defendants sought costs of $52,599.40.

The plaintiffs argued for a moderate costs award of $5,000 to $10,000 due to financial hardship and the reasonableness of the claim.

The court exercised its discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, fixing costs at $10,000 all inclusive, noting the plaintiff's significant injuries and financial hardship.

The applicant wife sought spousal support 24 years after separating from the respondent husband.

The parties had previously executed an amending agreement that released the husband from paying spousal support.

The court treated the application as a motion to change under the Family Law Act.

Although the court found a material change in the wife's financial circumstances, it concluded that her inability to achieve self-sufficiency was due to her long-standing alcohol addiction rather than any economic consequences of the marriage.

The court found no entitlement to support and held that the wife failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the 24-year delay.

The application for spousal support was dismissed, and a divorce order was granted.

Following a five‑day hearing on a motion to change child support, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The responding party to the motion had unsuccessfully sought a retroactive reduction of child support after selling a dental practice and relocating abroad, and income had been imputed based on prior earnings.

The successful party sought substantial costs including partial and full indemnity rates.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considering success, offers to settle, the parties’ conduct, and the complexity of the issues, the court found the successful party was entitled to costs but reduced the amount claimed.

The court fixed costs at a fair and reasonable figure rather than the full amount incurred.

The father brought a motion to change a 2000 divorce judgment, seeking to terminate child support for one child and adjust it for the other based on a reduction in his income after he sold his dental practice and moved to Honduras.

The court found the father was intentionally unemployed and under-employed, and that his health issues did not reasonably justify the sale of his practice.

The court imputed income to the father and determined the periods during which each child remained a 'child of the marriage' while pursuing post-secondary education.

The father was ordered to pay retroactive table support and his pro rata share of section 7 expenses for both children.

Following a family law judgment, the parties were unable to settle the wording of the final order concerning life insurance security.

The respondent agreed to maintain a $1 million life insurance policy naming the applicant as beneficiary but argued it should secure only the equalization payment.

The applicant argued the insurance should also secure spousal support obligations.

The court reviewed its notes and determined it had intended the policy to secure both equalization and spousal support obligations, and amended the earlier order under Rule 25(19)(b)(c) of the Family Law Rules to reflect that intention while preventing a windfall.