M.P.M. v. A.L.M.
| Jurisdiction | Ontario |
| Court | Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada) |
| Judge | Grace J. |
| Citation | 2020 ONSC 3491 |
| Docket Number | FD408/18 |
| Date | 04 June 2020 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
6 practice notes
-
Axford v. Axford
...of co-counsel resulted in a significantly more efficient trial. Sepiashvili v. Sepiashviili, 2001 CanLII 25708 (SCJ); M.P.M. v. A.L.M., 2020 ONSC 3491 (SCJ); Iacobelli v. Iacobelli, 2020 ONSC 6128 (SCJ); E.M. v. C.V., 2023 ONSC 1178 (SCJ). Multiple counsel for a party on a motion or trial i......
-
A.S.A. v. T.I.
...party should pay for more than one counsel in all the circumstances. [43] In M.P.M. v. A.L.M., 2020 ONSC 3491, some allowance on account of the more junior lawyer was found warranted. The applicant’s lawyers conducted the trial in an exceedingly eff......
-
S. v. A.
...[15] Justice Grace found such compelling circumstances in M.P.M. v. A.L.M., 2020 ONSC 3491, and he permitted the costs of a second counsel. Specifically, he made allowance for the costs of a junior lawyer, finding that his contribu......
-
I.S. v. T.C.
...events were not fixed or deferred for future determination. The respondent relies on Family Law Rules r 24(10) and M.P.M. v. A.L.M., 2020 ONSC 3491 in support of her position that those costs are not recoverable now. [19] The applicable FLRs are r 17 (18) and (18.1), and r 24 (10 and (11): ......
Get Started for Free
2 cases
-
I.S. v. T.C.
...events were not fixed or deferred for future determination. The respondent relies on Family Law Rules r 24(10) and M.P.M. v. A.L.M., 2020 ONSC 3491 in support of her position that those costs are not recoverable now. [19] The applicable FLRs are r 17 (18) and (18.1), and r 24 (10 and (11): ......
-
E.M. v. C.V.
...may be made, for example where it has led to an exceedingly efficient trial and duplication of time is eliminated (M.P.M. v. A.L.M., 2020 ONSC 3491). The matter must be extremely complicated for the court to find that there is a need for second counsel, and this is particularly so in family......
