W.L. MacPherson

Following a trial regarding a home renovation dispute, the plaintiff recovered $17,142.91 on a $38,000 claim, and the defendants' counterclaim was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of over $35,000.

The court awarded the plaintiff $7,200 in costs, noting that the recovery was within the Small Claims Court jurisdiction, the plaintiff had breached the contract despite the counterclaim's dismissal, and the costs claimed were disproportionate to the recovery.

Following a Hague Convention application in which the court ordered the return of two children to Germany after finding the mother had wrongfully retained them in Ontario, the court determined the issue of costs.

The father sought over $67,000 on a partial indemnity basis, while the mother argued that each party should bear their own costs or that any award should be substantially reduced.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and Article 26 of the Hague Convention, the court found the father was the successful party but reduced the claimed costs due to excessive billing, duplication of work, inclusion of unrelated steps, and some unreasonable conduct by the father during the proceedings.

The court also considered the mother’s success on a motion involving the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and her financial circumstances.

A global costs award was made reflecting a fair and reasonable amount in the circumstances.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of his two children to Germany.

The children had travelled to Canada with the respondent mother for an educational exchange with the father's consent, which expired in August 2014.

The mother refused to return the children, arguing they were habitually resident in Canada and objected to returning.

The court found the children's habitual residence remained Germany and their retention in Canada was wrongful.

The court rejected the mother's defences under Articles 12 and 13, finding the children's objections were not substantial enough to override the Convention's purpose.

The children were ordered returned to Germany.

Following a nine‑day family law trial on a motion to change, the respondent father was successful in obtaining sole custody, continued supervised access for the mother, and termination of child and spousal support obligations.

The court invited written submissions on costs, but the self‑represented mother did not file submissions.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court considered the success of the father, the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct, the complexity of the issues, and the significant disparity in income.

While the father sought substantial or partial indemnity costs exceeding $47,000, the court determined that a reduced award was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering payment of an outstanding debt to the respondent for labour, materials, and services.

The central trial issue concerned whether a partial payment had been made within the limitation period, thereby preventing the claim from being statute-barred.

On appeal, the appellants argued that the deputy judge’s extensive interventions during the trial compromised trial fairness and created an appearance of bias, particularly during the examination of the defendant and credibility findings.

The court reviewed the trial transcript and concluded that the nature and tone of the interventions crossed the line from permissible clarification into improper participation.

The trial judge’s questioning formed the basis of adverse credibility findings and created the appearance that conclusions had been reached before all evidence was heard.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered before a different deputy judge.

Following a family law trial concerning child support and contribution to extraordinary expenses, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The respondent was successful in obtaining an order for ongoing child support based on imputed income and payment of section 7 expenses.

Applying Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court confirmed that the successful party is presumptively entitled to costs.

While the respondent sought full recovery costs exceeding $13,000, the court found several time entries excessive and considered the reasonableness of both parties’ conduct.

Balancing the relevant factors and the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable, the court ordered the applicant to pay reduced costs of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that the one-year-old child be made a Crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing she had made progress in addressing protection concerns.

The court found that the mother had failed to adequately address long-standing issues with substance abuse and mental health, and that there was no realistic possibility of the child being returned to her care.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial, and ordered Crown wardship without access.

Following the dismissal of an appeal from a Small Claims Court decision, the successful respondent sought costs of the appeal.

The unsuccessful appellants conceded entitlement to partial indemnity costs but argued that counsel’s time was excessive and that disbursements should be reduced.

The court reviewed the bill of costs and found no basis to conclude that the time spent was excessive.

Applying the principles governing costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed partial indemnity costs in favour of the respondent.

In a child protection status review proceeding, the applicant society moved for summary judgment seeking a Crown wardship order without access and correction of the child’s legal name.

The court reviewed extensive affidavit evidence showing ongoing protection concerns including parental substance abuse, mental health issues, aggressive conduct toward service providers, failure to attend access visits or cooperate with the society, and lack of progress in addressing these concerns.

The parents filed no affidavit evidence and had not exercised access for over ten months.

Applying Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules and the Child and Family Services Act, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the child continued to require protection.

The court granted summary judgment, making the child a Crown ward without access and amending the child’s legal name to match the birth registration.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding they had trespassed on the respondent's property by erecting fence posts and a gate.

The trial judge awarded damages for the cost of a survey, a culvert, and legal fees.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred in his findings of fact regarding the property line and the status of the road, and that some damages were statute-barred.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's preference for the respondent's surveyor's evidence, and noting the limitations argument was not properly raised or founded.

The applicant mother sought sole custody or joint custody with primary residence of the parties' two children, as well as child and spousal support.

The respondent father sought sole custody or joint custody with primary residence remaining with him.

The court ordered joint custody, with primary residence of one child with the father and the other with the mother, and an equal time-sharing arrangement.

The court imputed an income of $20,000 to the mother and ordered the father to pay $717 per month in child support based on a set-off, along with $455 per month in time-limited spousal support for two years.

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 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.

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.

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.