Décisions de la Cour

Abonnez-vous au fil de nouvelles RSS afin de consulter les décisions

• Nouvelles décisions : Cour de justice de l’Ontario

Cour de justice de l’Ontario – décisions récentes

• 2026-08-07 Lorenzo Cuevas v. Marques, 2026 ONCJ 472 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Costs — Offers to settle — Whether the mother’s offer attracted subrule 24(12) costs consequences — Offer included full recovery costs term and short acceptance window — Non‑compliance with subrules 18(4) and 24(12) strictly applied — Offer not as good as or better than the result — Costs consequences under rule 24(12) denied<br />Procedure — Costs — Entitlement — Subrule 24(3) presumption of costs to successful party — Who succeeded based on positions at the motion — Mother obtained primary residence and decision‑making responsibility and support — Father did not rebut presumption — Is the mother entitled to her costs as the successful party — Costs awarded<br />Procedure — Costs — Quantum — Subrule 24(14) factors, unreasonable conduct under subrule 24(7) — Failures to meet timelines and provide disclosure, partial support compliance — Reasonableness, proportionality and ability to pay considered, hourly rate reasonable — Integrity of the justice system and elevated costs discussed — What amount of costs is reasonable — Costs fixed at $10,000 inclusive<br />Procedure — Costs — Enforcement and payment — Ability to pay addressed with instalment structure — Payment of $500 each month ordered starting on a specified date — Requirement to keep costs and child support in good standing — Acceleration if more than 30 days late after start date — Instalment payment terms with acceleration ordered
• 2026-08-06 Filazzola v. Beecher-Elliott, 2026 ONCJ 464 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Costs — Entitlement — Presumption under subrule 24(3) in favour of successful party — Was the mother successful on the motion to change child support? — Success assessed against positions advanced and relief sought — Divided success and apportionment under subrule 24(4) considered — Presumption not rebutted — Costs awarded<br />Procedure — Costs — Quantum assessment — Family Law Rules, subrule 24(14) — How should proportionality, importance, and offers to settle inform the amount? — Offer not as good as final order but relevant to reasonableness — Time and rates reviewed and found reasonable — Complexity modest — Costs fixed<br />Procedure — Costs — Unreasonable conduct — Duty of financial disclosure — Did unreasonable positions and deficient disclosure warrant costs consequences? — Failure to disclose cash income and sources identified — Deliberate unemployment or underemployment found — Conduct burdened court resources and impeded progress — Sanction through costs appropriate — Costs awarded<br />Procedure — Costs — Ability to pay — Structuring payment — Should ability to pay influence quantification and payment terms? — Income imputed and capacity to pay assessed — Reasonable expectation of costs addressed — Instalment plan ordered with acceleration on default for arrears — Costs payable by instalments
• 2026-08-05 Toronto (City) v. Mills, 2026 ONCJ 471 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Provincial offences — Highway Traffic Act, s. 144(18) — Did the defendant fail to stop at a red light? — Officer’s clear observation accepted — Defendant turned right without a complete stop — Circular red indication established by admissions — T intersection judicially noticed — Actus reus proven beyond a reasonable doubt — Conviction entered<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Provincial offences — Highway Traffic Act, s. 7(5)(a) — Did the defendant fail to surrender the permit on demand? — Officer requested registration — Defendant unable to produce permit — Non‑production confirmed in testimony — Elements of subsection 7(5)(a) satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt — Conviction entered<br />Statutory interpretation — Highway Traffic Act — Red light exception — Is s. 144(19) an exception or a charging section? — Plain reading identifies subsection 144(19) as exception to 144(18) — Wrong charge argument rejected — Charge under s. 144(18) proper despite right turn — Circular red indication wording addressed — Objection dismissed<br />Evidence — Credibility — Conflicting testimony — How to resolve Officer and defendant evidence under W.(D.)? — Gagnon applied to assess credibility — W.(D.) framework used — Lifchus and Starr on reasonable doubt cited — Officer’s independent recollection preferred — Defendant in third branch of W.(D.) — Proof beyond a reasonable doubt achieved — Convictions upheld
• 2026-08-04 Reid v. Fortune, 2026 ONCJ 454 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Costs — Offers to settle — Family Law Rules, subrule 24(12) — Did the mother’s offer meet subrule 24(12) and entitle full recovery costs? — Offer severable and as good as or better than final order — Compliance with subrule 18(4) addressed — Wilson v. Kovalev and Gurley v. Gurley applied — Full recovery costs after offer date awarded<br />Procedure — Costs — Quantum — Subrule 24(14) factors — What amount is reasonable and proportionate given the parties’ conduct? — Unreasonable conduct and disclosure breaches increased costs — Reasonableness and proportionality govern despite “full recovery” — Goryn v. Neisner and Jackson v. Mayerle considered — Ability to pay assessed — Costs fixed at $15,000 payable forthwith<br />Family — Support — Enforcement by Director — Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, clause 1(1)(g) — Can costs be allocated to support and enforced as an incident of support? — Flexible allocation endorsed, including case management steps — Allocation of 85 percent to support issues — Sordi v. Sordi and R.H. v. S.C. followed — Costs payable as support and enforceable by Director
• 2026-08-04 Aguilar v. Pesantez, 2026 ONCJ 460 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Costs — Successful party — Presumption under Family Law Rules, r. 24(3) — Whether the mother was the successful party — Dominant issues on motion resolved in her favour — Divided success rejected where substantive parenting-time relief denied — Starting point of success applied — Costs entitlement confirmed — Costs awarded<br />Procedure — Costs — Quantum — Fixing fair, reasonable and proportionate costs — Rule 24(14) factors considered — Counsel rate of $525 and law clerk rate of $285 assessed — Authorities on proportionality and rates applied — One half day parenting motion, straightforward issues — Amount sought excessive — Costs fixed at $5,000<br />Procedure — Costs — Timing — Whether costs should be reserved to the trial judge — Rule 24 contemplates costs at each step — Reserving costs creates uncertainty and complicates future proceedings — Motion judge best placed after hearing evidence and issuing reasons — No reason to defer — Costs determined now<br />Family — Support and enforcement — Characterisation of costs — Whether costs are enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office — Parenting motion with no child support relief sought or determined — Costs did not arise from determination, recovery or enforcement of support — Award enforceable as ordinary costs judgment — FRO enforcement refused