Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
La Cour a accordé une pension alimentaire rétrospective réduite, fixé une pension courante moindre en raison de difficultés excessives, et limité des dépenses spéciales s. 7.
Because the parties had mixed success the court applied Tariff A using the respective 'amounts involved' (Defendants: 50% interest valued from the purchase price; Plaintiff: $50,000 quantum meruit award), adjusted the tariff by exercise of discretion under Rule 77 (including Rules 77.07(2)(a) and (f)), fixed costs at $15,500 for the Defendants and $8,250 for the Plaintiff, and ordered set-off resulting in a net payment of $7,250 by the Plaintiff to the Defendants.
Source excerpt
The court settled a lawyer-fee certificate under the Legal Profession Act and held the certificate was “given” when the substantive fee review was decided, not when later issues were resolved.
Supplementary reasons on costs and prejudgment interest after a successful separation-agreement claim, with double costs ordered from October 17, 2019.
La Cour a modifié une ordonnance de 2005, accordé une pension alimentaire pour enfant rétroactive et courante, rejeté la demande de sursis et refusé la compensation générale.
The Court upheld the trial judge's use of a judicial interview (given the father's consent and urgency), and his finding that there was no material change in circumstances because the 2012 parenting order contemplated the end of parenting coordination and the parenting plan had not failed; however, on retroactive child support the correct principle is to award retroactivity to the date of effective notice (here the date of the mother's motion, June 3, 2014) absent blameworthy conduct, and only the legally enforceable portion of the costs award (50% as ordered in bankruptcy) could be set off a…
Source excerpt
Court determined costs after trial, applying offer-to-settle rules, set-off, and dismissal of the second-accident claim.
The limitation period began on January 10, 2011—the date of the cheque and its presentation which constituted the respondent's last acknowledgement of indebtedness—so the debt claim commenced January 17, 2013 was statute barred; the later qualified admission in cross-examination did not reset the limitation clock; the motion judge's costs assessment and refusal to order set-off was within discretion and will not be disturbed.
Source excerpt
The assessment officer lacked jurisdiction to allow assessable services to a self-represented litigant absent an express exercise of that power by the Court; the Respondent offered no evidence of prejudice or inability to recover to justify cross-file set-off, so no set-off was ordered; disbursements consented to by Respondent were allowed and the Amended Bill of Costs was assessed at $372.78.
Source excerpt
Respondent cancelled the settlement conference after the court-imposed filing deadline, failed to comply with directions and failed to appear for a scheduled conference; under Rules 59.39, 10.11-10.12 and 77.09 the judge exercised discretion to award indemnification; the court awarded petitioner CAD 9,996.38 in costs payable by respondent subject to specified set-offs.
Source excerpt
Explore more
