R.L. v. M.F. involved a dispute over spousal support following the end of an over 14-year marriage in which both the husband and wife were high income earners. The husband was the primary breadwinner while the wife took on most household and parenting responsibilities along with her part-time professional career. The trial judge awarded the wife ongoing spousal support, recognizing her entitlement based on both her contributions to the marriage and the economic partnership it created. The husband challenged the spousal support order on multiple grounds. The Court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge’s reasoning, and reaffirmed the principle of equitable sharing of marital benefits and the discretionary nature of spousal support awards.
Kirby v. Woods involved a dispute between divorced parents over the return of their daughter, X, to their country of origin under the Hague Convention after the mother brought X and her sibling to Canada and successfully claimed refugee status. The father sought X’s return, while the mother argued that X, now recognized as a refugee, would face serious harm if returned. The application judge ordered X’s return, finding the exceptions to return under the Hague Convention did not apply and questioning the child’s independent objection. On appeal, the Court found that the judge erred by failing to apply the rebuttable presumption against returning a recognized refugee child and by not giving proper weight to X’s own objections and fears of violence. The appeal was allowed and the order for X’s return set aside.
In Pine Glen Thorold Inc. v. Rolling Meadows Land Development Corporation, the Court held that a lawsuit stemming from a land sale dispute was an abuse of process because it attempted to re-litigate issues already decided or that could have been raised in prior proceedings.
In Barry v. Anantharajah, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle sued for negligence and was awarded only $16,160.50 after a three-week jury trial. The trial judge awarded the plaintiff $300,000 in costs (over $100,000 less than the plaintiff had claimed), finding that she was more successful at trial than the defendant, especially since the defendant and her insurer (Aviva) had refused to make any monetary settlement offer and had pursued an aggressive litigation strategy. On appeal, the Court upheld the costs award, emphasizing the trial judge’s discretion, the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s legal costs given the case’s complexity, and the importance of balancing proportionality with other costs considerations. The Court concluded that though the costs far exceeded the damages awarded, this was not uncommon and was justified in this case. The message to insurers that I take away is that there is a price to pay for being too aggressive (and clogging up the courts in the process).