Abba Katz

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking sole decision-making authority to have the parties' three children vaccinated against COVID-19 without the applicant father's consent.

The mother relied on public health recommendations and previous case law taking judicial notice that the vaccines are safe and effective.

The father opposed the motion, arguing the vaccines were experimental and seeking to present expert evidence at trial.

The court declined to take judicial notice that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, finding the issue to be controversial and capable of dispute by reasonable people.

The motion was dismissed and the matter was deferred to trial to allow the father to present expert evidence.

The applicant father sought an urgent case conference regarding access to the parties' 5 ½ year old child, which the respondent mother disputed as urgent or pressing.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of prior settlement discussions, which was deemed a precondition for such urgent requests during the COVID-19 suspension of regular court operations.

The decision reiterated the test for urgency and pressing issues, emphasizing the need for immediate, serious, definite, and particularized concerns, and diligent settlement efforts.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office sought a default order and committal term against a support payor who had accumulated $174,043.50 in arrears on a $2,500 monthly spousal support obligation.

The respondent had a history of non-compliance with court orders spanning multiple years, including failed motions to change and constitutional challenges.

The court found the respondent had the ability to pay but deliberately chose not to do so.

The court rejected arguments that Gladue principles applied to support enforcement proceedings and that the matter should be referred to a Justice Circle.

A final default order was issued requiring payment of arrears within 60 days, with a 180-day committal term for default, plus ongoing monthly support obligations with a 5-day committal term per default.

The applicant, a self-represented litigant, sought costs following the dismissal of the respondent's motion to change spousal support.

The court reviewed the principles for awarding costs to self-represented litigants, noting the applicant's extensive preparation and the respondent's inadequate financial disclosure which prolonged the trial.

The court found the applicant performed work comparable to a lawyer and awarded her $30,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis, calculated at a rate of $100 per hour for 313 hours of preparation, plus disbursements.

The moving party (former husband) brought a motion to change a final order to terminate his spousal support obligations, alleging a material change in circumstances due to a decline in his business income and the responding party's increased income.

The responding party opposed the motion and sought enforcement of over $134,000 in support arrears, as well as security for future support against the moving party's property on a First Nations reserve.

The court dismissed the motion to change, finding the moving party deliberately hid his income, failed to provide adequate financial disclosure, and had the means to pay.

The court imputed his income and found no material change in circumstances.

Furthermore, the court granted the responding party's request for security for future spousal support in the amount of $400,000, ordering a charge against the moving party's Certificates of Possession under the Indian Act, subject to approval by the Band and the Minister.

Following a family law trial addressing spousal support, child support, arrears, and equalization of net family property, both parties sought costs.

The court reviewed the trial findings, including that the respondent owed a substantial equalization payment to the applicant and that the applicant had been largely successful in the litigation.

Applying Rules 24(1) and 24(11) of the Family Law Rules and considering settlement offers, the court concluded the applicant achieved substantial success and had beaten the respondent’s settlement offer.

The court also considered the reasonableness of counsel’s rates, the limited complexity of the matter, and the conduct of the parties.

Costs of $18,000 inclusive of disbursements were awarded to the applicant.