Adela Crossley

This family law trial determined the valuation date for equalization where the spouses continued living under the same roof for years after their relationship deteriorated.

The court applied a holistic and objective analysis of the parties’ routines, vacations, sleeping arrangements, financial practices, family events, tax filings, and declarations to assess when they separated with no reasonable prospect of resuming cohabitation.

The respondent’s evidence supporting a 2014 separation date was rejected on credibility grounds, while the applicant’s evidence established only a temporary separation in 2016-2017 followed by reconciliation.

The court declared the separation date to be December 18, 2019 for purposes of s. 4 of the Family Law Act.

This decision addresses the costs of a decade-long family law proceeding.

The Respondent, M.M., sought full recovery of costs, alleging the Applicant, K.K., acted in bad faith.

The court found K.K. engaged in egregious bad faith conduct, including concealing financial information, presenting fabricated evidence, manipulating third parties, and repeatedly breaching court orders to inflict emotional, psychological, and financial harm on M.M. and alienate the children.

Consequently, the court awarded M.M. full recovery of trial-related costs and certain pre-trial costs, totaling $211,441, and stayed the enforcement of previous costs orders against M.M. due to K.K.'s oppressive conduct.

This endorsement addresses a procedural conference concerning the unilateral cancellation of a motion date booked via Calendly.

The court emphasized that opposing counsel cannot unilaterally cancel a scheduled hearing date without consent, as per the Central West (CW) Notice to the Profession and Parties.

The judge clarified that the court relies on counsel's undertakings in Calendly regarding attempts to agree on mutually convenient dates, and that a consent from opposing counsel is not a prerequisite for booking a motion.

The court strongly condemned the abuse of the Calendly scheduling system, outlining various forms of misconduct, and warned of serious consequences, including cost awards or other sanctions, for non-compliance with scheduling rules and undertakings.

The applicant applied for permanent residence under a temporary public policy for refugee claimants who worked in the health care sector during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The application was refused because an immigration officer determined that the applicant's unpaid internship did not meet the criteria, asserting that the program was not "accredited." The applicant sought judicial review, arguing a breach of procedural fairness.

The Federal Court held that the officer breached procedural fairness by relying on an extrinsic requirement of accreditation without providing the applicant an opportunity to respond.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter was remitted for redetermination.

The respondent husband brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant wife's application to set aside their separation agreement.

The wife brought a cross-motion for financial disclosure.

The wife argued the agreement should be set aside due to financial non-disclosure, duress, undue influence, and unconscionability, alleging the husband dictated the terms and threatened her.

The court found genuine issues for trial regarding the validity of the agreement, noting the husband's failure to provide financial disclosure and evasiveness during cross-examination.

The court dismissed the husband's motion for summary judgment, granted the wife's motion for financial disclosure, and ordered the husband to pay costs on a full recovery basis.

The respondent husband brought a motion seeking the production of the applicant wife's former counsel's file.

The wife opposed, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The court found that the wife had implicitly waived privilege by relying on her state of mind and legal advice to seek to set aside the separation agreement, and by disclosing details of her discussions with her lawyer during cross-examination.

The court ordered the wife to authorize the release of the file.

The applicant sought judicial review of an IAD decision dismissing his appeal of a refused spousal sponsorship application.

The applicant maintained an ongoing relationship with his current wife while engaging in an intervening marriage of convenience with another woman to gain permanent resident status in Canada.

The IAD determined that the applicant's relationship with his current wife was dissolved by the marriage of convenience, rendering their subsequent marriage a "new relationship" under section 4.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, and thus precluding the sponsorship.

The Federal Court found the IAD's interpretation and application of section 4.1 to be reasonable and dismissed the application.

The respondent brought a motion seeking an order for the applicant to contribute to joint debts and to vacate a jointly-owned cottage property.

The court dismissed the respondent's request for debt contribution, finding the applicant lacked the present ability to pay and that an accounting could be made at trial.

However, the court granted the applicant sole vacant possession of the cottage property, requiring him to assume responsibility for its ongoing costs and arrange insurance, dispensing with the respondent's consent for insurance.

The court also enjoined the respondent from disturbing the applicant's enjoyment of the property.

The applicant sought interim spousal support of $9,000 per month, while the respondent contended the appropriate amount was $4,370.

The court found both parties were not entirely candid regarding their financial disclosures.

After imputing incomes to both parties and considering their needs and ability to pay, the court ordered the respondent to pay $5,260 per month in temporary spousal support starting January 1, 2021.

The applicant was made responsible for cottage expenses, including a $500 monthly contribution to a line of credit.

Costs were reserved pending resolution of disclosure issues.

Following the vacating of the parties' motions for violating page limitations, the applicant requested an urgent teleconference regarding his spousal support motion.

The court expressed frustration with the parties' litigious conduct and the broader culture of unreasonableness and incivility in family court.

The court scheduled the applicant's spousal support motion and directed the respondent to file a 14B motion for leave to proceed with her motion.

The parties were scheduled to proceed with motions, but both filed affidavits and exhibits that grossly exceeded the page limitations set out in a prior Case Conference Order and the court's Notices to the Profession.

Neither party sought leave for the voluminous filings.

The court vacated the motions, holding counsel responsible for the non-compliance, and required the parties to seek leave via a Form 14B motion before the motions could be rescheduled.

The court also directed counsel to provide a copy of the endorsement to their clients and noted the court's ability to order lawyers not to charge fees for such work.

The Applicant, Lovedeep Kang, withdrew her action against the Third Party, Jagjit Kaur Bhullar.

Ms. Bhullar then sought full or substantial indemnity costs against the Applicant, alleging bad faith.

The Applicant argued for no costs, citing a bona fide claim and financial hardship.

The court found no bad faith, assessed costs on a partial indemnity basis, and considered the Applicant's financial circumstances but found insufficient evidence of hardship.

The court ultimately awarded Ms. Bhullar $6,000.00 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable at the conclusion of the main action, finding the claimed costs disproportionate to the stage of the action when it was abandoned.

The applicant moved to remove the respondent's lawyer and his firm as counsel of record, arguing she intended to call the lawyer as a witness at trial regarding the negotiation of a separation agreement she sought to set aside for duress.

The court applied the nine-factor test from Essa (Township) v. Guergis and found that the lawyer's evidence would largely be protected by solicitor-client privilege, other sources of evidence were available, and removing counsel would severely prejudice the respondent.

The motion to remove counsel was dismissed.

Following a five-day trial addressing issues of parental mobility, child support, and access, the court awarded costs to the successful party (the mother).

The mother sought full recovery of $37,516 while the father sought either $51,767 or $31,060.

The court determined that the mother was the successful party on three of four primary issues: mobility (relocation to Australia), access, and the child support reduction request.

The father was partially successful on the income imputation issue.

The court declined to apply Rule 18 offer to settle provisions as none of the offers met the statutory requirements.

The court awarded partial indemnification of $25,000 to the mother, with $12,500 to be enforced through the Family Responsibility Office as part of the child support order.

A trial decision addressing custody, relocation, access, and child support in a family law matter involving twin children.

The mother sought sole custody and permission to relocate with the children from Canada to Australia to live with her new husband.

The father opposed the relocation and sought joint custody and extensive access.

The court granted the mother sole custody and permission to relocate to Australia, finding the move was in the children's best interests.

The court ordered a phased access schedule for the father, commencing with day visits and progressing to overnight visits, with international travel to the United Kingdom permitted from age nine.

The court imputed income to the father for child support purposes based on his salary and family gifts, ordering monthly child support of $1,624.

The moving party father brought a motion seeking summer access to his two children in Egypt, the UAE, or the USA.

The responding party mother opposed the motion, citing a previous incident where the children disappeared for 10 days in Egypt, outstanding criminal charges against the father in Canada for alleged physical abuse, and the fact that Egypt and the UAE are not signatories to the Hague Convention.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father had shown disregard for the Canadian court system and the children's welfare, and that the risk of the children not being returned to Canada outweighed the benefits of the proposed international access.

The respondent, Mr. Kay, brought a motion to set aside a divorce judgment granted to the applicant, Ms. Akomani, on April 9, 2018.

The court applied the test for setting aside a default judgment, considering promptness, explanation for default, arguable defence, potential prejudice, and the integrity of the administration of justice.

It was found that Ms. Akomani obtained the divorce without full disclosure, potentially by mistake or fraud, regarding Mr. Kay's whereabouts and his prior motion to extend time.

Mr. Kay acted promptly and demonstrated an arguable defence regarding the validity of the marriage.

The court granted Mr. Kay's application, setting aside the divorce judgment and allowing him to file an Answer denying the marriage.

Costs were reserved for written submissions.

The applicant sought spousal support following the breakdown of her marriage to the respondent.

The applicant had immigrated to Canada from Mexico, was sponsored by the respondent, and they married in 2012.

After the applicant's refugee claim was denied, she returned to Mexico and waited approximately 3.5 years for her sponsorship to be processed.

Upon her return to Canada in 2015, the parties cohabited for nine months before separating.

The applicant sought $1,500 per month for three years, citing the respondent's sponsorship undertaking and her need for retraining.

The respondent argued the applicant was not entitled to support and should be self-sufficient.

The court found the applicant entitled to spousal support on both a non-compensatory needs basis and a contractual basis arising from the sponsorship agreement.

The court awarded $1,000 per month for 18 months (December 1, 2018 to June 30, 2020), declining to impute income to the applicant and declining to award retroactive support due to the potential social assistance debt repayment obligation.

This is a costs endorsement following a family law trial concerning custody, access, child support, and the mother's ability to move the child's residence and travel internationally.

The parties settled most issues during trial, with the mother achieving substantial success on the remaining contested issues regarding relocation and international travel.

The court awarded costs to the mother, finding her to be the successful party while considering the divided success on settled issues and the father's unreasonable behaviour in underpaying child support and failing to satisfy a prior costs order.

A trial concerning parenting and child support arrangements for a two-year-old child born to parties who married in Egypt and subsequently immigrated to Canada.

The parties resolved custody (awarded to mother), communication terms, government documentation access, and child support during trial.

The court determined four remaining contested issues: whether the mother could relocate the child's primary residence outside Ontario, travel to non-Hague Convention countries, travel outside Canada in emergencies, and whether a police enforcement order should be made.

The court found the mother credible and reliable, rejected the father's concerns about her trustworthiness, and granted the mother flexibility to relocate within Canada with notice, travel internationally for vacation purposes, and travel in emergencies without prior notice.

The court declined to issue a police enforcement order.