Gender Bias in Family Law at the
Court of Appeal Ontario 2007
Apr 2006, Revised Sept 2007
Part I Judicial Decisions on Family Law Cases
In this section family law decisions have been evaluated for individual appellate judges. Appeal issues have been classified into 7 general family categories. A single appeal may involve more than one issue and therefore receive multiple entries. It may also involve cross appeals by the opposing spouse. Costs refers to costs of the appeal. If costs of lower court rulings are a primary appeal issue they have been included in the category of other. Since the costs of the appeal represents a secondary discretionary ruling by the court, it has been given extended analysis in both magnitude and application. Summaries of the data can be found on pages 28. A full listing of the cases and decisions are given in appendixes A1 to A26 starting on page 58.
For Justice Abella, 53 family cases were available, and 51 of them had data on cost penalties. 21 appeals were innitiated by females and 32 appeals by males. 4 cross appeals were brought by women and 3 by men. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A1. A summary of the decisions is as follows
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Males 
2 
6 
1 
11 
12 
6 
18 
51 
Number of Male Wins 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
3 
6 
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Females 
5 
1 
0 
10 
6 
7 
7 
51 
Number of Female Wins 
2 
1 
0 
9 
6 
5 
3 
32 
Summarized in percentage terms
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
% Chance of Male Win 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
8.3 
16.7 
16.7 
11.7 
% Chance of Female Win 
40.0 
100.0 
NA 
90.0 
100.0 
71.4 
42.8 
62.7 
It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (58/87 x 100) 66.7 % chance of winning, and a man has a (11/107 x 100) 10.2 % % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Abella on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (26/36 x 100) 72.2 % chance of winning, and a man has a (5/56 x 100) 8.9 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 11.7 % in favor of men, 62.7 % in favor of females and divided 25.6 % of the time.
Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 66.7 – 10.2 = 56.5 %
Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 72.2 – 8.9 = 63.3 %
Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 62.7 – 11.7 = 51.0 %
Female / Male Wins = 66.7 / 10.2 = 6.5
Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 66.7 + 10.2) / 2 = 76.9 / 2 = 38.5 %
For Justice Feldman 52 family cases were available, and 51 of them had data on cost penalties. 23 appeals were innitiated by women and 29 by men. 3 cross appeals were brought by women and 2 by men. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A2. A summary of the decisions is as follows
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Males 
7 
5 
0 
10 
5 
11 
13 
51 
Number of Male Wins 
0 
2 
0 
3 
1 
2 
4 
6 
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Females 
2 
0 
1 
8 
6 
5 
6 
51 
Number of Female Wins 
1 
0 
1 
8 
5 
2 
4 
36 
Summarized in percentage terms
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
% Chance of Male Win 
0.0 
40.0 
NA 
30.0 
20.0 
18.2 
30.7 
11.7 
% Chance of Female Win 
50.0 
NA 
100.0 
100.0 
83.3 
40.0 
63.6 
70.5 
It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (57/78 x 100) 73.0 % chance of winning, and a man has a (18/102 x 100) 17.6 % % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Feldman on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (21/27 x 100) 77.8 % chance of winning, and a man has a (12/51 x 100) 23.5 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 11.6 % in favor of men, 70.5 % in favor of females and divided 17.9 % of the time.
Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 73.0 – 17.6 = 55.4 %
Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 77.8 – 23.5 = 54.3 %
Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 70.5 – 11.6 = 58.9 %
Female / Male Wins = 73.0 / 17.6 = 4.1
Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 73.0 + 17.6) / 2 = 90.6 / 2 = 45.3 %
For Justice Charron, 48 family cases were available, and 44 of them had data on cost penalties. 12 appeals were innitiated by females and 36 appeals by males. 3 cross appeals were brought by women. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A3. A summary of the decisions is as follows
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Males 
3 
2 
0 
15 
9 
9 
18 
44 
Number of Male Wins 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
3 
2 
6 
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Females 
1 
0 
1 
3 
1 
2 
7 
44 
Number of Female Wins 
1 
0 
1 
2 
1 
2 
5 
35 
Summarized in percentage terms
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
% Chance of Male Win 
0.0 
0.0 
NA 
6.7 
0.0 
33.3 
11.1 
13.6 
% Chance of Female Win 
100.0 
NA 
100.0 
66.7 
100.0 
100.0 
71.4 
79.5 
It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (50/62 x 100) 80.6 % chance of winning, and a man has a (12/99 x 100) 12.1 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Charron on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (12/15 x 100) 80.0 % chance of winning, and a man has a (6/56 x 100) 10.7 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 13.6 % in favor of men, 79.5 % in favor of females and divided 6.8 % of the time.
Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 80.6 – 12.1 = 68.5 %
Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 80.0 – 10.7 = 69.3 %
Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins =79.5 – 10.7 = 68.3 %
Female / Male Wins = 80.6 / 12.1 = 6.7
Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 80.6 + 12.1) / 2 = 92.7 / 2 = 46.4 %
For Justice Simmons 46 family cases were available, and all of them had data on cost penalties. 14 appeals were innitiated by females and 32 appeals by males. 3 cross appeals were brought by women. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A4. A summary of the decisions is as follows
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Males 
5 
4 
1 
12 
6 
7 
17 
46 
Number of Male Wins 
0 
2 
0 
4 
3 
2 
7 
7 
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Females 
1 
1 
2 
3 
3 
1 
9 
46 
Number of Female Wins 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
0 
3 
21 
Summarized in percentage terms
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
% Chance of Male Win 
0.0 
50.0 
0.0 
33.3 
33.3 
28.6 
11.8 
15.2 
% Chance of Female Win 
100.0 
100.0 
50.0 
33.3 
66.7 
0.0 
33.3 
45.6 
It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (30/66 x 100) 45.8 % chance of winning, and a man has a (25/101x 100) 24.7 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Simmons on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (9/20 x 100) 45.0 % chance of winning, and a man has a (18/52 x 100) 34.6 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 15.2 % in favor of men, 45.6 % in favor of females and divided 39.1 % of the time.
Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 45.8 – 24.7 = 20.8 %
Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 45.0 – 34.6 = 10.4 %
Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 45.6 – 15.2 = 30.4 %
Female / Male Wins = 45.8 / 24.7 = 1.9
Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 45.8 + 24.7) / 2 = 70.5 / 2 = 35.3 %
For Justice Lang 35 family cases were available, and 30 of them had data on cost penalties. 13 appeals were innitiated by females and 22 appeals by males. 2 cross appeals were brought by women. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A6. A summary of the decisions is as follows
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Males 
4 
2 
0 
7 
8 
6 
13 
30 
Number of Male Wins 
1 
0 
0 
1 
0 
2 
3 
3 
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Females 
1 
0 
0 
6 
3 
2 
7 
30 
Number of Female Wins 
0 
0 
0 
4 
2 
2 
3 
20 
Summarized in percentage terms
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
% Chance of Male Win 
25.0 
0.0 
NA 
14.2 
0.0 
33.3 
23.0 
10.0 
% Chance of Female Win 
0.0 
NA 
NA 
66.7 
66.7 
100.0 
52.9 
66.7 
It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (31/49 x 100) 63.2 % chance of winning, and a man has a (10/70 x100) 14.7 % % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Lang on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (11/17 x 100) 64.7 % chance of winning, and a man has a (7/40 x 100) 17.5 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 10.0 % in favor of men, 66.7 % in favor of females and divided 22.3 % of the time.
Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 63.2 – 14.7 = 48.5 %
Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 64.7 – 17.5 = 47.2 %
Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 66.7 – 17.5 = 49.2 %
Female / Male Wins – 63.2 / 14.7 = 4.3
Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 63.2 + 14.7 ) / 2 = 77.9 / 2 = 39.0 %
For Justice Weiler 50 family cases were available, and 46 of them had data on cost penalties. 17 appeals were innitiated by females and 33 appeals by males. 5 cross appeals were brought by women and 3 by men. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A6. A summary of the decisions is as follows
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Males 
5 
2 
1 
15 
13 
11 
16 
46 
Number of Male Wins 
0 
0 
0 
3 
3 
5 
4 
1 
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Females 
2 
0 
2 
8 
6 
3 
7 
46 
Number of Female Wins 
1 
0 
1 
7 
4 
3 
4 
32 
Summarized in percentage terms
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
% Chance of Male Win 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
20.0 
27.3 
45.4 
25.0 
2.2 
% Chance of Female Win 
50.0 
NA 
50.0 
100.0 
71.4 
100.0 
57.1 
69.6 
It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (51/72 x 100) 70.8 % chance of winning, and a man has a (15/143 x 100) 14.4 % % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Weiler on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (20/26 x 100) 76.9 % chance of winning, and a man has a (15/63 x 100) 23.8 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 2.2 % in favor of men, 69.6 % in favor of females and divided 28.2 % of the time.
Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 70.8 – 14.4 = 56.4 %
Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 76.9 – 23.8 = 53.1 %
Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 69.6 – 2.2 = 67.4 %
Female to Male Wins = 70.8 / 14.4 = 4.9
Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 70.8 + 14.4) / 2 = 85.2 / 2 = 42.6 %
For Justice McMurtry 38 family cases were available, and 37 of them had data on cost penalties. 12 appeals were innitiated by females and 26 appeals by males. 4 cross appeals were brought by women and 1 by a man. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A7 A summary of the decisions is as follows
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Males 
4 
5 
2 
8 
5 
7 
18 
37 
Number of Male Wins 
0 
1 
1 
2 
2 
2 
7 
6 
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Females 
1 
0 
1 
8 
0 
4 
7 
37 
Number of Female Wins 
0 
0 
1 
4 
0 
1 
4 
22 
Summarized in percentage terms
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
% Chance of Male Win 
0.0 
20.0 
50.0 
20.0 
40.0 
28.5 
38.9 
16.2 
% Chance of Female Win 
100.0 
NA 
100.0 
50.0 
NA 
25.0 
57.2 
59.5 
It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (33/58 x 100) 56.9 % chance of winning, and a man has a (21/86 x 100) 24.4 % % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice McMurtry on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (10/21 x 100) 47.6 % chance of winning, and a man has a (15/49 x 100) 30.6 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 16.2 % in favor of men, 59.5 % in favor of females and divided 16.5 % of the time.
Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 56.9 – 24.4 = 32.5 %
Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 47.6 – 30.6 = 17.0 %
Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 59.5 – 16.2 = 43.4 %
Female / Male Wins = 56.9 / 24.4 = 2.3
Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 59.6 + 24.4) / 2 = 84.0 / 2 = 42.0 %
For Justice O’Connor 27 family cases were available, and all of them had data on cost penalties. 10 appeals were innitiated by females and 17 appeals by males. 3 cross appeals were brought by women and 2 by men The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A8 A summary of the decisions is as follows
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Males 
3 
1 
1 
3 
11 
5 
5 
27 
Number of Male Wins 
0 
0 
1 
0 
4 
2 
0 
6 
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Females 
1 
0 
0 
3 
2 
2 
6 
27 
Number of Female Wins 
1 
0 
0 
3 
2 
1 
2 
14 
Summarized in percentage terms
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
% Chance of Male Win 
0.0 
0.0 
100.0 
0.0 
36.3 
40.0 
0.0 
22.2 
% Chance of Female Win 
100.0 
NA 
NA 
100.0 
100.0 
50.0 
33.3 
51.9 
It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (23/41 x 100) 56.1 % chance of winning, and a man has a (13/56 x 100) 23.2 % % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice O’Connor on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (9/14 x 100) 64.3 % chance of winning, and a man has a (7/29 x 100) 24.1 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 22.2 % in favor of men, 51.9 % in favor of females and divided 25.9 % of the time.
Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 56.1 – 23.2 = 32.9 %
Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 64.3 – 24.1 = 40.2 %
Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 51.9 – 22.2 = 29.7 %
Female / Male Wins = 56.1 / 23.2 = 2.4
Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 56.1 + 23.2) / 2 = 79.3 / 2 = 39.7 %
For Justice Goudge 62 family cases were available, and 56 of them had data on cost penalties. 22 appeals were innitiated by females and 40 appeals by males. 2 cross appeals were brought by women. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A9. A summary of the decisions is as follows
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Males 
1 
1 
3 
11 
13 
11 
18 
56 
Number of Male Wins 
0 
0 
1 
4 
5 
4 
3 
7 
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Females 
4 
2 
1 
7 
0 
5 
8 
56 
Number of Female Wins 
3 
2 
1 
6 
0 
4 
6 
34 
Summarized in percentage terms
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
% Chance of Male Win 
0.0 
0.0 
33.3 
36.4 
38.4 
36.4 
16.7 
12.5 
% Chance of Female Win 
75.0 
100.0 
100.0 
85.7 
NA 
80.0 
75.0 
60.7 
It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (57/84 x 100) 67.9 % chance of winning, and a man has a (24/114 x 100) 21.0 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Goudge on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (22/27 x 100) 81.5 % chance of winning, and a man has a (17/58 x 100) 29.3 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 12.5 % in favor of men, 60.7 % in favor of females and divided 26.8 % of the time.
Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 67.9 – 21.0 = 46.9 %
Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 81.5 – 29.3 = 52.2 %
Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 60.7 – 12.5 = 48.2
Female / Male Wins = 67.9 / 21.0 = 3.2
Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 67.9 + 21.0) / 2 = 88.9 / 2 = 44.5 %
For Justice Borins 38 family cases were available, and 35 of them had data on cost penalties. 18 appeals were innitiated by females and 20 appeals by males. 2 cross appeals were brought by men The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A10. A summary of the decisions is as follows
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Males 
2 
2 
1 
6 
6 
6 
10 
35 
Number of Male Wins 
0 
0 
0 
3 
3 
2 
2 
5 
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Females 
2 
0 
0 
9 
4 
1 
5 
35 
Number of Female Wins 
0 
0 
0 
7 
3 
0 
1 
20 
Summarized in percentage terms
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
% Chance of Male Win 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
50.0 
50.0 
33.3 
20.0 
14.3 
% Chance of Female Win 
0.0 
NA 
NA 
77.8 
75.0 
0.0 
20.0 
57.1 
It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (31/56 x 100) 55.4 % chance of winning, and a man has a (15/68 x 100) 22.0 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Borins on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (11/21 x 100) 52.4 % chance of winning, and a man has a (10/33 x 100) 30.3 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 14.3 % in favor of men, 57.1 % in favor of females and divided 28.6 % of the time.
Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 55.4 – 22.0 = 33.4 %
Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 52.4 – 30.3 = 22.1 %
Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 57.1 – 14.3 = 42.8 %
Female / Male Wins = 55.4 / 22.0 = 2.5
Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 55.4 + 22.0) / 2 = 77.4 / 2 = 38.7 %
For Justice Rosenbrg 60 family cases were available, and 56 of them had data on cost penalties. 27 appeals were innitiated by females and 33 appeals by males. 5 cross appeals were brought by women and 3 by men The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A11. A summary of the decisions is as follows
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Males 
4 
3 
2 
9 
13 
8 
16 
56 
Number of Male Wins 
0 
0 
0 
1 
8 
1 
6 
8 
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Females 
2 
2 
2 
11 
7 
4 
12 
56 
Number of Female Wins 
0 
2 
2 
7 
5 
2 
6 
34 
Summarized in percentage terms
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
% Chance of Male Win 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
11.1 
61.5 
12.5 
37.5 
14.3 
% Chance of Female Win 
0.0 
100.0 
100.0 
63.6 
71.4 
50.0 
50.0 
60.7 
It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (58/95 x 100) 61.0 % chance of winning, and a man has a (23/106 x 100) 21.7 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Rosenberg on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (24/40 x 100) 60.0 % chance of winning, and a man has a (16/55 x 100) 29.1 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 14.3 % in favor of men, 60.7 % in favor of females and divided 25.0 % of the time.
Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 61.0 – 21.7 = 39.3 %
Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 60.0 – 29.1 = 30.9 %
Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 60.7 – 14.3 = 46.4 %
Female / Male Wins = 61.0 / 21.7 = 2.8
Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 61.0 + 21.7 ) / 2 = 82.7 / 2 = 41.4 %
For Justice Armstrong 44 family cases were available, and 40 of them had data on cost penalties. 18 appeals were innitiated by females and 26 appeals by males. 1 cross appeals was brought by a woman and 1 by a man The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A12. A summary of the decisions is as follows
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Males 
4 
2 
2 
8 
9 
3 
8 
40 
Number of Male Wins 
0 
1 
0 
3 
4 
1 
3 
8 
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Females 
2 
1 
0 
6 
5 
3 
8 
40 
Number of Female Wins 
1 
0 
0 
3 
3 
2 
4 
21 
Summarized in percentage terms
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
% Chance of Male Win 
0.0 
50.0 
0.0 
37.5 
44.4 
33.3 
37.5 
20.0 
% Chance of Female Win 
50.0 
0.0 
NA 
50.0 
60.0 
66.7 
50.0 
52.5 
It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (34/65 x 100) 52.3 % chance of winning, and a man has a (21/76 x 100) 27.6 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Armstrong on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (13/25 x 100) 52.0 % chance of winning, and a man has a (12/36 x 100) 33.3 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 13.2 % in favor of men, 52.5 % in favor of females and divided 27.5 % of the time.
Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 52.3 – 27.6 = 24.7 %
Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 52.0 – 33.3 = 18.7 %
Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 52.5 – 13.2 = 39.3 %
Female / Male Wins = 52.3 / 27.6 = 1.9
Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 52.3 + 27.6) / 2 = 79.9 / 2 = 40.0 %
For Justice Moldaver 51 family cases were available, and 48 of them had data on cost penalties. 22 appeals were innitiated by females and 29 appeals by males. 5 cross appeals were brought by women and 2 by men. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A13. A summary of the decisions is as follows
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Males 
4 
3 
1 
11 
6 
12 
13 
48 
Number of Male Wins 
0 
1 
0 
2 
1 
3 
3 
4 
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Females 
3 
2 
2 
13 
7 
2 
5 
48 
Number of Female Wins 
0 
1 
2 
7 
3 
0 
2 
33 
Summarized in percentage terms
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
% Chance of Male Win 
0.0 
33.3 
0.0 
18.2 
16.7 
25.0 
23.0 
8.3 
% Chance of Female Win 
0.0 
50.0 
100.0 
53.8 
42.9 
0.0 
40.0 
68.8 
It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (49/82 x 100) 59.7 % chance of winning, and a man has a (14/100 x 100) 14.0 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Moldaver on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (15/34 x 100) 44.1 % chance of winning, and a man has a (10/50 x 100) 20.0 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 8.3 % in favor of men, 68.8 % in favor of females and divided 22.9 % of the time.
Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 59.7 – 14.0 = 45.7
Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 44.1 – 20.0 = 24.1 %
Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 68.8 – 8.3 = 60.5 %
Female / Male Wins = 59.7 / 14.0 = 4.3
Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 59.7 + 14.0) / 2 = 73.7 / 2 = 36.9 %
For Justice Macpherson 55 family cases were available, and 53 of them had data on cost penalties. 15 appeals were innitiated by females and 40 appeals by males. 4 cross appeals were brought by women. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A14. A summary of the decisions is as follows
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Males 
3 
2 
2 
14 
13 
7 
24 
53 
Number of Male Wins 
0 
0 
1 
1 
2 
1 
6 
6 
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Females 
1 
1 
1 
6 
5 
1 
11 
53 
Number of Female Wins 
1 
0 
1 
3 
3 
1 
5 
42 
Summarized in percentage terms
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
% Chance of Male Win 
0.0 
0.0 
50.0 
7.1 
15.4 
14.3 
25.0 
11.3 
% Chance of Female Win 
100.0 
0.0 
100.0 
50.0 
60.0 
10 0.0 
45.5 
79.2 
It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (56/79 x 100) 70.9 % chance of winning, and a man has a (17/118 x 100) 14.4 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Macpherson on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (14/26 x 100) 53.8 % chance of winning, and a man has a (11/65 x 100) 16.9 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 11.3 % in favor of men, 79.2 % in favor of females and divided 9.5 % of the time.
Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 70.9 – 14.4 = 56.5 %
Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 53.8 – 16.9 = 36.9 %
Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 79.2 – 11.3 = 67.9 %
Female / Male Wins = 70.9 / 14.4 = 4.9
Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 70.9 + 14.4) / 2 = 85.3 / 2 = 42.7 %
For Justice Gillese 40 family cases were available, and 36 of them had data on cost penalties. 17 appeals were innitiated by females and 23 appeals by males. 3 cross appeals were brought by women and13 by a man. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A15. A summary of the decisions is as follows
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Males 
2 
2 
1 
10 
9 
3 
13 
36 
Number of Male Wins 
0 
0 
0 
4 
4 
3 
5 
6 
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Females 
1 
3 
1 
5 
6 
2 
8 
36 
Number of Female Wins 
1 
3 
1 
5 
4 
2 
3 
23 
Summarized in percentage terms
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
% Chance of Male Win 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
40.0 
0.0 
100.0 
0.0 
16.7 
% Chance of Female Win 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
66.7 
100.0 
0.0 
63.9 
It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (43/63 x 100) 68.3 % chance of winning, and a man has a (27/80 x 100) 27.5 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Gilese on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (19/26 x 100) 73.1 % chance of winning, and a man has a (24/50 x 100) 48.0 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 16.7 % in favor of men, 63.9 % in favor of females and divided 19.4 % of the time.
Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 68.3 – 27.5 = 40.8 %
Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 73.1 – 48.0 = 25.1 %
Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 63.9 – 16.7 = 47.2 %
Female / Male Wins = 68.3 / 27.5 = 2.5
Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 68.3 + 27.5) / 2 = 95.8 / 2 = 47.9 %
For Justice Juriansz 32 family cases were available, and 31 of them had data on cost penalties. 13 appeals were innitiated by females and 19 appeals by males. 1 cross appeal was brought by a woman. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A16. A summary of the decisions is as follows
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Males 
1 
1 
0 
2 
6 
5 
10 
31 
Number of Male Wins 
0 
1 
0 
0 
3 
1 
2 
6 
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Females 
1 
1 
0 
7 
4 
0 
4 
31 
Number of Female Wins 
0 
1 
0 
4 
3 
0 
2 
18 
Summarized in percentage terms
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
% Chance of Male Win 
0.0 
100.0 
NA 
0.0 
50.0 
20.0 
20.0 
19.3 
% Chance of Female Win 
0.0 
100.0 
NA 
57.1 
75.0 
NA 
50.0 
58.1 
It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (28/48 x 100) 58.3 % chance of winning, and a man has a (13/56 x 100) 23.2 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Juriansz on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (10/17 x 100) 58.8 % chance of winning, and a man has a (7/25 x 100) 28.0 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 19.3 % in favor of men, 58.1 % in favor of females and divided 22.6 % of the time.
Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 58.3 – 23.2 = 35.1%
Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 58.8 – 28.0 = 30.8 %
Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 58.1 – 19.3 = 38.8 %
Female / Male Wins = 58.3 / 23.2 = 2.5
Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 58.3 + 23.2) / 2 = 81.5 / 2 = 40.8 %
For Justice Blair 35 family cases were available, and 32 of them had data on cost penalties. 13 appeals were innitiated by females and 22 appeals by males. 2 cross appeals were brought by women and 2 by men The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A 17. A summary of the decisions is as follows
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Males 
3 
1 
1 
11 
10 
4 
11 
32 
Number of Male Wins 
0 
0 
0 
2 
1 
0 
2 
5 
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Females 
2 
1 
1 
5 
3 
1 
6 
32 
Number of Female Wins 
1 
0 
1 
4 
2 
1 
3 
21 
Summarized in percentage terms
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
% Chance of Male Win 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
18.2 
10.0 
0.0 
18.2 
15.6 
% Chance of Female Win 
50.0 
0.0 
100.0 
80.0 
66.7 
100.0 
50.0 
65.6 
It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (32/50 x 100) 64.0 % chance of winning, and a man has a (10/72 x 100) 13.9 % % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Blair on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (12/19 x 100) 63.2 % chance of winning, and a man has a (5/41 x 100) 12.2 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 15.6 % in favor of men, 65.6 % in favor of females and divided 18.8 % of the time.
Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 64.0 – 13.9 = 50.1 %
Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 63.2 – 12.2 = 51.0 %
Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 65.6 – 15.6 = 50.0 %
Female / Male Wins = 64.0 / 13.9 = 4.6
Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 64.0 + 13.9) / 2 = 77.9 / 2 = 39.0 %
For Justice Sharpe 42 family cases were available, and 39 of them had data on cost penalties. 15 appeals were innitiated by females and 27 appeals by males. 3 cross appeals were brought by women and 1 by a man. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A 18. A summary of the decisions is as follows
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Males 
4 
2 
3 
7 
6 
7 
13 
39 
Number of Male Wins 
0 
1 
0 
2 
1 
2 
3 
6 
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Females 
2 
2 
1 
10 
6 
2 
5 
39 
Number of Female Wins 
2 
1 
1 
2 
1 
1 
3 
24 
Summarized in percentage terms
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
% Chance of Male Win 
0.0 
50.0 
0.0 
40.0 
16.7 
28.6 
23.0 
15.4 
% Chance of Female Win 
100.0 
50.0 
100.0 
20.0 
16.7 
50.0 
60.0 
61.5 
It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (35 / 66 x 100) 53.0 % chance of winning, and a man has a (15/80 x 100) 18.7 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Sharpe on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (11/28 x 100) 39.2 % chance of winning, and a man has a (9/42 x 100) 21.4 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 15.4 % in favor of men, 61.5 % in favor of females and divided 23.1 % of the time.
Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 53.0 – 18.7 = 34.3 %
Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 39.2 – 21.4 = 17.8 %
Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 61.5 – 15.4 = 46.1 %
Female / Male Wins = 53.0 / 18.7 = 2.8
Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 53.0 + 18.7) / 2 = 71.7 / 2 = 35.9 %
For Justice Catzman 48 family cases were available, and 40 of them had data on cost penalties. 15 appeals were innitiated by females and 33 appeals by males. 2 cross appeals were brought by women and 1 by a man. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A19. A summary of the decisions is as follows
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Males 
3 
2 
1 
14 
8 
10 
14 
40 
Number of Male Wins 
0 
1 
0 
6 
5 
6 
5 
4 
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Females 
2 
1 
0 
8 
3 
3 
6 
40 
Number of Female Wins 
2 
1 
0 
6 
2 
3 
3 
28 
Summarized in percentage terms
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
% Chance of Male Win 
0.0 
50.0 
0.0 
42.8 
0.0 
60.0 
35.7 
10.0 
% Chance of Female Win 
100.0 
100.0 
NA 
75.0 
66.7 
100.0 
50.0 
70.0 
It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs a woman has a (45/63 x 100) 71.4 % chance of winning, and a man has a (26/91 x 100) 28.5 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Catzman on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (17/23 x 100) 73.9 % chance of winning, and a man has a (23/52 x 100) 44.2 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 10.0 % in favor of men, 70.0 % in favor of females and divided 20.0 % of the time.
Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 71.4 – 28.5 = 42.9 %
Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 73.9 – 44.2 = 29.7 %
Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 70.0 – 10.0 = 60.0 %
Female / Male Wins = 71.4 / 28.5 = 2.5
Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 71.4 + 28.5) / 2 = 99.9 / 2 = 50.0 %
For Justice Labrosse 42 family cases were available, and 38 of them had data on cost penalties. 17 appeals were innitiated by females and 25 appeals by males. 2 cross appeals were brought by women and 5 by men. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A 20. A summary of the decisions is as follows
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Males 
3 
3 
2 
4 
8 
8 
16 
38 
Number of Male Wins 
0 
2 
1 
1 
2 
3 
2 
5 
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Females 
1 
2 
2 
4 
2 
2 
9 
38 
Number of Female Wins 
0 
1 
2 
3 
2 
2 
4 
22 
Summarized in percentage terms
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
% Chance of Male Win 
0.0 
66.7 
50.0 
25.0 
25.0 
37.5 
12.5 
13.2 
% Chance of Female Win 
0.0 
50.0 
100.0 
75.0 
100.0 
100.0 
44.4 
57.9 
It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (37/59 x 100) 62.7 % chance of winning, and a man has a (15/73 x 100) 20.5 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Labrose on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (14/22 x 100) 63.6 % chance of winning, and a man has a (11/44 x 100) 25.0 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 13.2 % in favor of men, 57.9 % in favor of females and divided 28.9 % of the time.
Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 62.7 – 20.5 = 42.2 %
Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 63.6 – 25.0 = 38.6 %
Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 57.9 – 13.2 = 44.7 %
Female / Male Wins = 62.7 / 20.5 = 3.1
Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 62.7 + 20.5) / 2 = 83.2 / 2 = 41.6 %
For Justice Cronk 58 family cases were available, and 55 of them had data on cost penalties. 20 appeals were innitiated by females and 38 appeals by males. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A 21. A summary of the decisions is as follows
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Males 
5 
3 
0 
14 
13 
12 
15 
55 
Number of Male Wins 
1 
1 
0 
4 
2 
2 
5 
7 
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Females 
0 
0 
2 
6 
4 
3 
11 
55 
Number of Female Wins 
0 
0 
2 
3 
2 
3 
5 
32 
Summarized in percentage terms
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
% Chance of Male Win 
20.0 
33.3 
NA 
28.5 
15.4 
16.7 
31.3 
12.7 
% Chance of Female Win 
NA 
NA 
100.0 
50.0 
50.0 
100.0 
45.5 
58.2 
It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (49/80 x 100) 61.3 % chance of winning, and a man has a (22/116 x 100) 18.9 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Cronk on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (15/24 x 100) 62.5 % chance of winning, and a man has a (15/62 x 100) 24.2 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 12.7 % in favor of men, 58.2 % in favor of females and divided 29.1 % of the time.
Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 61.3 – 18.9 = 42.4 %
Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 62.5 – 24.2 = 38.3 %
Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 58.2 – 12.7 = 45.5 %
Female / Male Wins = 61.3 / 18.9 = 3.2
Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 61.3 + 18.9) / 2 = 79.9 / 2 = 40.0 %
For Justice Laskin 77 family cases were available, and 65 of them had data on cost penalties. 24 appeals were innitiated by females and 53 appeals by males. 5 cross appeals were brought by women and 2 by men The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A22. A summary of the decisions is as follows
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Males 
4 
6 
1 
18 
22 
12 
23 
65 
Number of Male Wins 
1 
3 
1 
3 
9 
3 
11 
15 
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Females 
3 
1 
2 
4 
7 
6 
9 
65 
Number of Female Wins 
0 
0 
0 
2 
5 
3 
4 
26 
Summarized in percentage terms
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
% Chance of Male Win 
25.0 
50.0 
100.0 
16.7 
40.9 
25.0 
47.8 
23.1 
% Chance of Female Win 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
50.0 
71.4 
50.0 
44.4 
40.0 
It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (41/97 x 100) 42.2 % chance of winning, and a man has a (47/151 x 100) 31.1 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Laskin on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (15/32 x 100) 46.9 % chance of winning, and a man has a (32/86 x 100) 37.2 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 23.1 % in favor of men, 40.0 % in favor of females and divided 36.9 % of the time.
Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 42.2 – 31.1 = 11.1 %
Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 46.9 – 37.2 = 9.7 %
Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 40.0 – 23.1 = 16.9 %
Female / Male Wins = 61.3 / 18.9 = 3.2
Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 61.3 + 18.9) / 2 = 79.9 / 2 = 40.0 %
For Justice Doherty 44 family cases were available, and 43 of them had data on cost penalties. 17 appeals were innitiated by females and 27 appeals by males. 1 cross appeal was brought by a woman. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A23 A summary of the decisions is as follows
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Males 
3 
1 
0 
10 
7 
8 
14 
43 
Number of Male Wins 
0 
1 
0 
5 
1 
2 
2 
8 
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Females 
3 
0 
0 
11 
6 
1 
6 
43 
Number of Female Wins 
1 
0 
0 
6 
3 
1 
2 
26 
Summarized in percentage terms
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
% Chance of Male Win 
0.0 
100.0 
NA 
50.0 
0.0 
25.0 
15.4 
18.6 
% Chance of Female Win 
33.3 
NA 
NA 
54.5 
0.0 
100.0 
33.3 
60.5 
It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (39/70 x 100) 55.7 % chance of winning, and a man has a (17/85 x 100) 20.0 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Doherty on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (13/27 x 100) 48.1 % chance of winning, and a man has a (11/43 x 100) 25.6 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 18.6 % in favor of men, 60.5 % in favor of females and divided 20.9 % of the time.
Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 55.7 – 20.0 = 35.7 %
Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 48.1 – 25.6 = 22.5 %
Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 60.5 – 18.6 = 41.9 %
Female / Male Wins = 55.7 / 20.0 = 2.8
Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 55.7 + 20.0 ) / 2 = 75.7 / 2 = 37.9 %
For Justice Carthy 36 family cases were available, and 34 of them had data on cost penalties. 14 appeals were innitiated by females and 22 appeals by males. 3 cross appeals were brought by women and 1 by a man. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A24. A summary of the decisions is as follows
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Males 
2 
0 
0 
9 
8 
5 
12 
34 
Number of Male Wins 
0 
0 
0 
2 
3 
3 
1 
5 
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Females 
1 
0 
0 
5 
4 
2 
6 
34 
Number of Female Wins 
1 
0 
0 
4 
4 
1 
2 
21 
Summarized in percentage terms
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
% Chance of Male Win 
0.0 
NA 
NA 
22.2 
37.5 
60.0 
8.3 
14.7 
% Chance of Female Win 
100.0 
NA 
NA 
80.0 
100.0 
50.0 
33.3 
61.8 
It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (33/52 x 100) 63.5 % chance of winning, and a man has a (13/70 x 100) 18.6 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Carthy on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (11/18 x 100) 61.1 % chance of winning, and a man has a (9/36 x 100) 25.0 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 14.7 % in favor of men, 61.8 % in favor of females and divided 23.5 % of the time.
Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 63.5 – 18.6 = 44.9 %
Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 61.1 – 25.0 = 36.1 %
Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 61.8 – 14.7 = 47.1 %
Female / Male Wins = 63.5 / 18.6 = 3.4
Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 63.5 + 18.6 ) / 2 = 82.1 / 2 = 41.1 %
For Justice Macfarland 22 family cases were available, and 19 of them had data on cost penalties. 4 appeals were innitiated by females and 18 appeals by males. 2 cross appeals were brought by women. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A25. A summary of the decisions is as follows
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Males 
2 
2 
0 
5 
6 
3 
10 
19 
Number of Male Wins 
0 
0 
0 
2 
2 
2 
4 
4 
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Females 
0 
0 
1 
2 
2 
1 
2 
19 
Number of Female Wins 
0 
0 
0 
1 
2 
1 
1 
12 
Summarized in percentage terms
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
% Chance of Male Win 
0.0 
0.0 
NA 
40.0 
33.3 
66.6 
40.0 
21.0 
% Chance of Female Win 
NA 
NA 
0.0 
50.0 
100.0 
100.0 
50.0 
63.2 
It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (17/27 x 100) 63.0 % chance of winning, and a man has a (13/45 x 100) 28.9 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Macfarland on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (5/8 x 100) 62.5 % chance of winning, and a man has a (10/28 x 100) 35.7 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 21.0 % in favor of men, 63.2 % in favor of females and divided 15.8 % of the time.
Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 63.0 – 28.9 = 34.1 %
Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 62.5 – 35.7 = 26.8 %
Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 63.2 – 21.0 = 41.4 %
Female / Male Wins = 63.0 / 28.9 = 2.2
Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 63.0 + 28.9 ) / 2 = 91.9 / 2 = 46.0 %
For Justice Rouleau 20 family cases were available, and 19 of them had data on cost penalties. 8 appeals were innitiated by females and 12 appeals by males. 1 cross appeal was brought by a man. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A26. A summary of the decisions is as follows
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Males 
2 
1 
0 
3 
3 
0 
7 
19 
Number of Male Wins 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
1 
4 
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
Number of Females 
2 
1 
0 
2 
1 
0 
6 
19 
Number of Female Wins 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
12 
Summarized in percentage terms
Appellant 
Custody 
Access 
Mobility 
Spousal Support 
Child Support 
Equalization 
Other 
Costs 
% Chance of Male Win 
0.0 
0.0 
NA 
33.3 
0.0 
NA 
14.3 
21.0 
% Chance of Female Win 
100.0 
0.0 
NA 
0.0 
0.0 
NA 
33.3 
63.2 
It can be concluded that in the overall result including costs, a woman has a (16/31 x 100) 51.6 % chance of winning, and a man has a (6/35 x 100) 17.1 % chance of winning when appearing before a panel with Justice Rouleau on it. On appeal issues alone a woman to has a (4/12 x 100) 33.3 % chance of winning, and a man has a (2/16 x 100) 12.5 % chance of winning. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 21.0 % in favor of men, 63.2 % in favor of females and divided 15.7 % of the time.
Overall Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 51.6 – 17.1 = 34.5 %
Appeal Issue Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 33.3 – 12.5 = 20.8 %
Cost Discrimination Index = % Female Wins  % Male Wins = 63.2 – 21.0 = 42.2 %
Female / Male Wins = 51.6 / 17.1 = 3.0
Win Index = ( Female Wins + Male Wins ) / 2 = ( 51.6 + 17.1) / 2 = 68.7 / 2 = 34.4 %
Appendix B3 — 1997 Cases
Sex of Lawyer ( wining / losing) 
Cost Penalty (sex of wining appellant) 


Sex. of appellant 
Grounds of Appeal . ( Win/Lose ) 
Cross. Appeal. (Win / Lose ) 
F v m 
(m) 
1997 
Munro v. Munro (October 17) 
M 
(W) SS 

F v m 
(w) 
1997 
Politi v Politi (April 18) 
M 
(L) CS, EQ, O 



1997 
Layzell v. Layzell (December 8) 
M 
(L) C 

M v f 
(w) 
1997 
Best v. Best (October 3) 
M 
(L) SS, EQ, O 

F v m 
(w) 
1997 
Rarie v Rarie 
M 
(W) EQ 

F v f 
(w) 
1997 
Therrien – Cliché v Cliché (April 1) 
M 
(L) O 

F v f 
nc 
1997 
Davidson v Davidson (March 4) 
M 
(W) EQ 
(W) CS 
M v m 
(m) 
1997 
Van Bork v Van Bork (June 27) 
M 
(W) EQ (L) SS, O 

F v m 
(w) 
1997 
Tureck v. Tureck (November 9) 
M 
(L) O 

M v f 
(w) 
1997 
Forler v Forler (April 7) 
W 
(W) SS 

M v f 
(m) 
1997 
Roach v Roach (December 12) 
W 
(L) EQ, O 

M v m 
nc 
1997 
Crawford v Crawford 
W 
(L) SS, EQ 

M v f 
(w) 
1997 
Forler v Forler (April 7) 
W 
(W) SS 

M v m 
nc 
1997 
Sagoo v Sagoo (March 18) 
W 
(W) O 


(w) 
1997 
Halliday v Halliday (December 24) 
W 
(W)SS, O, (L)EQ 

M v m 
(w) 
1997 
Trewin v Jones (February 7) 
W 
(W) SS 

M v m 
(m) 
1997 
Ligate v Richardson ( Jan 27) 
W 
(W) M 

Appendix B4 — 1998 Cases
Sex of Lawyer ( wining / losing) 
Cost Penalty (sex of wining appellant) 


Sex. of appellant 
Grounds of Appeal . ( Win/Lose ) 
Cross. Appeal. (Win / Lose ) 
F v m 
(w) 
1998 
Daoust v Leboeuf (January 14) 
M 
(L) C 
(W)CS, O (L)SS 
M v m 
(w) 
1998 
Francis v. Baker (March 10) 
M 
(L) CS, SS, O 

F v m 
(w) 
1998 
McCallum v McCallum (March 23) 
M 
(W) O 

M v m 
(w) 
1998 
Valenti v. Valenti (May 22) 
M 
(L) CS, SS, EQ, O 

M v m 
(w) 
1998 
Luckhurst v Luckhurst (June 4) 
M 
(L) M 

Sr v m (m) 
nc 
1998 
Melzack v. Germain (June 9) 
M 
(L) CS 

M v m 
nc 
1998 
Brooks v. Brooks (June 25) 
M 
(W) O 

F v m 
(w) 
1998 
Choquette v. Choquette (July 28) 
M 
(L) SS 


(w) 5000 
1998 
Irwin v. Irwin (September 10) 
M 
(L) C, A 

M v m 
(w) 
1998 
Trotter v Trotter (October 29) 
M 
(L) EQ 


(w) 
1998 
Cole v Cole (November 10) 
M 
(L) EQ 

M v m 
(w) 
1998 
Rachiele v. Rachiele (December 1) 
M 
(L) EQ 

F v m (f) 
nc 
1998 
Pivacet v Paul (Mach 13) 
W 
(W) O (L) SS 

M v m 
(w) 1500 
1998 
Burnett v Burnett (March 12) 
W 
(L) O 


nc 
1998 
Walsh v. Walsh (July 20) 
W 
(L) C 

F v f 
(m) 
1998 
Follows v Follows (September 10) 
W 
(L) O 

M v f (w) 
(m) 
1998 
Appleyard v Appleyard (September 14) 
W 
(W) EQ 

M v m 
(m) 
1998 
Debora v Debora (October 22) 
W 
(L) EQ 

F v m 
nc 
1998 
Wood v Robertson (November 9) 
W 
(W) O (L) EQ 
(L) O 
F v f 

1998 
Pollastro v Pollastro (November 16) 
W 
(W) M 

F v m 
(w) 
1998 
Bezanson v Falle (December 23) 
W 
(W) CS O 

Appendix B5 — 1999 Cases
Sex of Lawyer ( wining / losing) 
Cost Penalty (sex of wining appellant) 


Sex. of appellant 
Grounds of Appeal . ( Win/Lose ) 
Cross. Appeal. (Win / Lose ) 
M v m 
(w) 
1999 
Mozzarello v Mazzarello (January 21) 
M 
(L) EQ 

M v f 
def 
1999 
Murphy v Murphy (January 29) 
M 
(W) EQ 

M v m 
(w) 
1999 
Pope v. Pope (February 3) 
M 
(L) SS, EQ 

F v m (m) 
nc 
1999 
Gerstner v Borg (February 10) 
M 
(W) O 

M v m 
(w) 
1999 
Chinneck v Chinneck (February 12) 
M 
(L)EQ, O 

F v m 
(w) 
1999 
Swanson v Swanson (February 16) 
M 
(W) O 

F v m 
(w) 
1999 
Appiah v Appiah (February 22) 
M 
(L) C, M 

Sr v sr 
nc 
1999 
Likeda v Jarrel (March 15) 
M 
(L) A 


(w) 
1999 
Merikallio v. Merikallio (March 22) 
M 
(L) CS 

M v m 
(m) 
1999 
Nahatchewitz v Natatchewitz (May 27) 
M 
(W) EQ (L) O 

M v m 
(w) 
1999 
Dunlop v Dunlop (May 27) 
M 
(L) O 


(m) 
1999 
Leopold v Leopold (June 14) 
M 
(W) SS 

F v sr 
(w) 
1999 
Bennet v Bennet (June 16) 
M 
(L) O 

M v m 
(w) 
1999 
Losereit v Losereit (June 21) 
M 
(W) SS 

F v f 
nc 
1999 
Doe v Doe (June 29) 
M 
(W) SS 

Sr v m (m) 
nc 
1999 
Lee v. Lee (August 5) 
M 
(L) CS 

M v f 
(w) 4000 
1999 
Shortman v Shortman (Aug 6) 
M 
(L) SS EQ O 

M v m 
nc 
1999 
Vandepas v. Stephens (September 2) 
M 
(L) SS, CS 
(L) SS, CS 
M v m 
(m) 
1999 
Sefton v Brasg (September 11) 
M 
(W) CS 

F v m 
(w) 
1999 
Andrews v. Andrews (September 29) 
M 
(L) CS, SS 

F v f 

1999 
Finizio v Scoppio – Finizio (September 29) 
M 
(W) M 



1999 
Irmie v Irmie (October 18) 
M 
(W) SS 

M v m 
(w) 
1999 
Davids v Davids (October 22) 
M 
(L) CS, SS, O 

M v f 

1999 
Denis v Wilson (November 6) 
M 
(W) CS 

F v m 
(w) 
1999 
Bogue v Bogue (November 16) 
M 
(L) SS, O 

Sr v m (m) 
nc 
1999 
Kincartz v Kincartz 
W 
(W) SS 

M v m 
(w) 2000 c 
1999 
Kardish v Kardish (Mar 1 1999) 
W 
(W) O 

M v m 
(w) 
1999 
Bildy v Bildy (February 22) 
W 
(W) CS, SS 

F v m 
(w) 
1999 
Pollastro v Pollastro (February 25) 
W 
(W) C 

Sr v m 
(w) 
1999 
Gordon v Gordon (March 9) 
W 
(W) SS 

F v sr 
(w) 
1999 
Munn v Munn (March 11) 
W 
(W) CS, SS 


(w) 
1999 
Babij v Babij (March 19) 
W 
(W) SS, EQ, O 

M v M 
nc 
1999 
McCord v Holek (March 26) 
W 
(W) C, A 

M v m 
(w) 
1999 
Sherman v. Sherman (April 16) 
W 
(W) CS, SS 

M v m 
(m) 
1999 
Brett v Brett (April 28) 
W 
(L) CS, EQ, O 

M v m 
(w) 
1999 
Grundl v Lehner (May 6) 
W 
(L) O 
(L) O 
M v m 
(m) 3500 
1999 
Brans v Brans (May 14) 
W 
(L) CS, O 

M v m 
nc 
1999 
Circelli v Circelli (May 19) 
W 
(W) C 

M v m 
(m) 1500 
1999 
Kraft v Kraft (June 7) 
W 
(W) EQ 

M v m 
(w) 
1999 
Miller v. Miller (June 9) 
W 
(W) C 

Sr v sr 
nc 
1999 
Tremblay v Tremblay (July 6) 
W 
(W) SS 


(w) 2000 
1999 
Otterbein v Otterbein (Aug 6) 
W 
(W) SS 

M v m 
(w) 
1999 
Novosel Novosel (September 21) 
W 
(W) EQ 

M v sr 
(w) 
1999 
Teeple v Teeple (September 24) 
W 
(W) SS 

M v m 
(m) 
1999 
Cole v Martin (September 30) 
W 
(L) O 

M v f 
nc 
1999 
Giles v Villeneuve (October 5) 
W 
(L) CS 

F v f 
nc 
1999 
Rechsteiner v Kendall (October 25) 
W 
(W) M 

F v m 
(w) 
1999 
Hall v. Hall (October 28) 
W 
(W) SS (L) CS 
(L) O 
M v f 
(w) 1500 
1999 
Boston v Boston (November 3) 
W 
(W) SS 

M v m 
(w) 
1999 
Simon v Simon (December 1) 
W 
(W) CS, SS, O 

M v m 
(m) 
1999 
Behrens v Stoodly (December 17) 
W 
(L) SS 

Appendix B6 — 2000 Cases
Sex of Lawyer ( wining / losing) 
Cost Penalty (sex of wining appellant) 


Sex. of appellant 
Grounds of Appeal . ( Win/Lose ) 
Cross. Appeal. (Win / Lose ) 
F v m 
(w) 6000 
2000 
Leavoy v Leavoy (September 13) 
M 
(L) O 

F v m 
(w) 
2000 
Tauber v Tauber (June 12) 
M 
(W) CS (L) C, O 
(W) SS, O 
F v m (m) 
nc 
2000 
Bates v Bates (June 19) 
M 
(W) CS 

F v m (m) 
nc 
2000 
Nasser v Mayer Nasser (February 29) 
M 
(L) EQ 
(L) EQ 
M v m 
(w) 10000 
2000 
Johnson v Johnson (March 15) 
M 
(L) O 
(L) O 
M v m 
(w) 
2000 
Yackobeck v Hartwig (Aug 17) 
M 
(L) SS, EQ 

M v m 
nc 
2000 
Wasney v Wasney (April 27) 
M 
(W) CS 

M v m 
(w) 3500 
2000 
Davignon v Davignon (February 25) 
M 
(W) SS 

M v m 

2000 
Krisko v Krisko (October 26) 
M 
(L) O 

M v sr 
(w) 
2000 
Lachapelle v. Lachapelle (November 15) 
M 
. (L) C, CS, EQ, O 

Sr v sr 
nc 
2000 
Wheeler v Wheeler (December 20) 
M 
(W) CS (L) CS 

M v m 
(w) 
2000 
Lay v Lay ( Mar 17) 
W 
(W) EQ 

M v m 

2000 
Rhys – Jones v Rhys – Jones (April 20) 
W 
(W) SS 

M v m 
(m) 11000 
2000 
Baldwin v Funston (May 3) 
W 
(L) SS 

M v m 
nc 
2000 
Rothgiesser v Rothgiesser (January 12) 
W 
(W) SS 

F (m) v m 
nc 
2000 
Radcliffe v Radcliffe (June 2) 
W 
(L) SS 

M (f) v sr 

2000 
Hurwitz v Barber (May 9) 
W 
(L) A, O 
(L) O 
Appendix B7 — 2001Cases
Sex of Lawyer ( wining / losing) 
Cost Penalty (sex of wining appellant) 


Sex. of appellant 
Grounds of Appeal . ( Win/Lose ) 
Cross. Appeal. (Win / Lose ) 
M v sr 
(w) 4000 
2001 
Aristocrat v. Aristocrat (July 3) 
M 
(L) O 

F v m 
(w) 
2001 
Manis v Manis (September 18) 
M 
(L) O 

M v m 
(w) 
2001 
Miglin v. Miglin (April 26) 
M 
(L) A, SS 
(w) SS 
M v m 
(w) 
2001 
Milla v Milla (Mar 19) 
M 
(L) O 

F v m 
(w) 3000 
2001 
Miranda v. Bossio (June 18) 
M 
(L) SS 

M v m 
(w) 
2001 
Stone v Stone (August 10) 
M 
(L) EQ, O 

M v m 
(m) 
2001 
Wamsley v Wamsley (February 14) 
M 
(W) EQ 

M v m 
nc 
2001 
Wreggitt v Belanger (December 10) 
M 
(W) A (L) C 

F v m 
(w) 
2001 
Scanlon v Standish (Oct 12) 
M 
(L) EQ 

F v m (m) 
nc 
2001 
Cole v Kew (Mar 6) 
M 
(L) C 
(L) EQ 
M v m 
(w) 
2001 
Coathup v Coathup (May 18) 
M 
(L) O 

F v m 
(m) 
2001 
Chertow v Chertow (May 10) 
M 
(L) O 

F v f 
(w) 
2001 
Marson v. Marson (May 15) 
M 
(L) CS, O 

M v m 
(w) 
2001 
Stanghi v. Stanghi (May 24) 
M 
(L) CS, SS 

F v m 
(w) 
2001 
Bolt v Bolt (April 4) 
M 
(L) O 
(W) O 
M v m 
(w) 1000 
2001 
Hagen v Hagen (February 5) 
M 
(L) O 

F v m 
(w) 
2001 
Lamarche v Crevier (November 9) 
M 
(W)EQ (L)CS, SS 

M v m 
nc 
2001 
Arvai v Arvai (February 20) 
M 
(W) EQ (L( SS) 


(w) 
2001 
Palombi v Palombi (March 19) 
M 
(L) CS, SS 

F vm 
(w) 17680 
2001 
Jones v Jones (Aug 16) 
M 
(L) EQ 

M v m 
(w) 
2001 
Birce v Birce ( October 10) 
M 
(L) EQ, O 

F vm 
(w) 
2001 
Meiklejohn v Meiklejohn (October 10) 
M 
(L) SS, EQ 

M v m 
(w) 
2001 
Adams v Adams (April 30) 
M 
(W) O (L)CS, SS, EQ 

F v m 
(w) 
2001 
Hauer v. Hauer (December 19) 
M 
(L) SS 

M v m 
(w) 
2001 
Hutchinson v Hutchinson ( January 15) 
W 
(W) EQ 

M v m 
(w) 
2001 
Scheel v Henkleman (January 16) 
W 
(W) SS 

F v m (m) 
nc 
2001 
Maurici v Maurici (February 20) 
W 
(W) SS (L) EQ 
(L) SS 
M v f 
(m) 
2001 
Katsigiannis v Kottick Katsigiannis (April 3) 
W 
(L) C 

M v m 
(m) 
2001 
Rosien v. McCulloch (May 8) 
W 
.(L) O 

F v m (m) 
nc 
2001 
Ursano v Rochon (May 31) 
W 
(L) C 

M v m 
(w) 
2001 
Difrancesco v Coutu (September 4) 
W 
(W) CS 

M v m 
nc 
2001 
Leeson v Leeson (September 24) 
W 
(L) SS 

M v f 
(w) 
2001 
Maharaj v Maharaj (October 4) 
W 
(W) O 

F v m 
(w) 
2001 
Cho v Cho (October 5) 
W 
(W) CS 

F v f 
nc 
2001 
Wolf v Wales (December 13) 
W 
(L) M 

M v m 
(w) 
2001 
Arnold v Washburn (December 19) 
W 
(W) CS 

Appendix B8 — 2002 Cases
Sex of Lawyer ( wining / losing) 
Cost Penalty (sex of wining appellant) 


Sex. of appellant 
Grounds of Appeal . ( Win/Lose ) 
Cross. Appeal. (Win / Lose ) 
M v m 

2002 
Drygala v Pauli ( ) 
M 
(W) CS (L) CS 

M v m 
nc 
2002 
Scott v. McKinley ( January 16) 
M 
(W) A 

M v m 
(w) 
2002 
Brown v Brown (February 27 ) 
M 
(W) O (L) C, A, CS, SS, EQ 
(W) CS 
M v f 
(w) 10000 
2002 
JS v TB (February 27) 
M 
(L) M 

F v m 
(w) 
2002 
Wright v Zavier (March 26) 
M 
(L) CS 

M v m 
nc 
2002 
Kopaniak v McLellan (April 29) 
M 
(W) O 
(L) CS 
M v m 
(w) 4500 
2002 
Sleiman v. Sleiman (May 7) 
M 
(W) O 

M v m 
(w) 6411 
2002 
Ball v Ball (May 7 ) 
M 
(L) O 



2002 
Slieman v Slieman (May 14) 
M 
(W) O 

M v m 
(w) 9000 
2002 
Klerides v Klerides (May 30) 
M 
(W) CS, SS (L) EQ 

M v m 
nc 
2002 
Hooper v Hooper (May 31) 
M 
(W) O (L) CS 

F v f 
(w) 3000 
2002 
Boucher v Boucher (June 9) 
M 
(L) O 

M v m 
(w) 2500 c 
2002 
Collier v Tobar (June 19 ) 
M 
(L) EQ 

M v m 
(w) 12000 
2002 
Sodhi v. Sodhi (June 19) 
M 
(L) CS, SS 
(W) M 
F v m 
(w) 5000 
2002 
Kazdan v Kazdan (June 24) 
M 
(L) M 

M v m 
(w) 22500 
2002 
Taylor v Taylor (July 8) 
M 
(W) O 
(W) CS 
F v m 
nc 
2002 
Louie v Lastman (September 17) 
M 
(W) CS 

M v f 
nc 
2002 
Eager v Graves (October 15) 
M 
(W) CS 

M v m 
(w) 4000 
2002 
Tennant v Tennant (November 15) 
M 
(W) O (L) O 

M v m 
(w) 24000 
2002 
Roseneck v Gowling (December 24) 
M 
(W) O 
(L) SS 
M v m 
(w) 4500 
2002 
Scherer v Scherer (February 18) 
W 
(W) O 

M v f 
(w) 20000 
2002 
Johnson v Cleroux (February 25) 
W 
(W) M, O 
(L) C 
M v m 
(m) 4000 
2002 
Wright v Wright (February 28) 
W 
(L) O 

F v m 
nc 
2002 
Parks v. Barnes (March 7) 
W 
(W) C 

M v m 
(w) 
2002 
R v R (March 25) 
W 
(W) CS 

F v m 
(w) 
2002 
Chan v Lam (March 26) 
W 
(W) EQ, O 

F v sr 
nc 
2002 
Turner v Viau (April 8) 
W 
(L) O 

Sr v sr 
(m) 7500 
2002 
Goldenberg v. Wolf (May 22) 
W 
(L) C 

M v m 
(m) 7500 
2002 
Latcham v Latcham (May 29) 
W 
(L) O 

M v m 
(w) 4000 
2002 
Rushinko v Rushinko (June 21) 
W 
(W) M 

M v m 
(m) 
2002 
Butler v Kronby (July 3) 
W 
(L) SS 

M v m 
(w) 2500 