Adriana Doyle

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final order that provided for joint custody of their 14-year-old son.

The mother sought sole custody due to a breakdown in communication and the father's failure to respond to medical and educational issues.

The court found a material change in circumstances and awarded sole custody to the mother, noting the parents lacked the minimum ability to communicate required for joint custody.

The father's access schedule was also modified to accommodate the child's busy sports schedule and the father's suspended driver's license.

The applicant wife sought interim child and spousal support, determination of Section 7 expenses, a non-depletion order against the husband's corporation, and financial disclosure.

The respondent husband disputed support quantum, sought income imputation for the wife, and opposed the non-depletion order.

The court determined the husband's income for support, declined to impute income to the wife, set ongoing child and spousal support, specified Section 7 expenses, issued a non-depletion order for $500,000 against the husband's corporation, and ordered specific financial disclosure.

Retroactive support claims were reserved for trial.

The respondent wife brought a motion seeking spousal support and the immediate sale of the matrimonial home.

The request for sale was abandoned due to lack of court jurisdiction as the husband was the sole owner.

The applicant husband opposed spousal support, citing short cohabitation, the wife's extended residence in Africa during the marriage, alleged non-disclosure of bank accounts, and her ownership of properties in Africa.

The court found that the marriage had an economic impact on the wife's career and that the husband had a financial obligation due to an immigration sponsorship agreement.

The court ordered the husband to pay spousal support of $800 per month, exceeding the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, to meet the wife's transitional needs and prevent reliance on social assistance.

The Applicant sought costs following a motion for child support, while the Respondent also sought costs.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, their behaviour, and the Family Law Rules.

The Applicant's offer was less favourable than the final order, and her expectations were deemed unrealistic.

The Respondent's offer was closer to the final order but did not meet formal requirements.

The Respondent was found to have breached a prior divorce order by failing to provide financial disclosure, leading to the Applicant incurring legal costs.

Considering both parties' conduct, the court made no order as to costs.

Following a motion regarding spousal support where the applicant sought termination and the respondent sought an increase, the court reduced but did not terminate support.

The applicant sought costs of $8,000 on a full indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the Family Law Rules and the fundamental purposes of costs.

Finding that neither party was entirely successful, the court ordered no costs due to divided success.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to dispense with the respondent's consent to adoption.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs due to the respondent's delays, while the respondent sought costs as the successful party in the underlying motion.

The court, applying the Family Law Rules and jurisprudence, found that despite the respondent's success, his unreasonable behaviour caused unnecessary delays and costs for the applicant.

Consequently, the court ordered no costs to either party.

The applicant mother sought to vary a 2010 custody order for her son, AJ, who has moderately severe autism, requesting a week on/week off parenting schedule and a variation of child support.

She also sought determination of post-secondary costs for her daughter, Jessie.

The respondent father sought a variation of custody for AJ to 24/28 days with him, retroactive and ongoing child support, and an order appointing him as guardian of AJ's property.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to Jessie's departure for university.

The court ordered a week on/week off schedule for AJ, with the mother responsible for driving him to school to avoid long bus rides.

The mother was ordered to pay $7,193.14 in retroactive child support to the father and $500 per month directly to Jessie for her post-secondary education.

The father was appointed guardian of AJ's property, with a directive to share ODSP payments equally with the mother.

The applicant sought an extension of time to bring an application for an equalization payment under the Family Law Act, and a declaration that his equitable claims based on unjust enrichment and trust doctrines were within the applicable limitation periods.

The respondent opposed, arguing the applicant failed to meet the good faith requirement for an extension and that equitable claims were time-barred by a two-year limitation period.

The court granted the extension, finding the applicant acted in good faith by prioritizing family needs and being deterred by the respondent's conduct, and declared the equitable claims were subject to a ten-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act, not the two-year period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The applicant sought to vary child and spousal support provisions of a separation agreement and to impute income to the respondent.

The respondent opposed, arguing no material change of circumstances and seeking to impute income to the applicant.

The court found a material change of circumstances due to the applicant's career change and significant income reduction.

The court imputed income to the applicant at $58,000 for 2014-2016, increasing to $73,000 for 2017, finding his decision to start a business without experience unreasonable.

The court also imputed income to the respondent at $20,000 for 2017, finding her under-employed.

Retroactive and ongoing support adjustments were ordered based on these imputed incomes.

This trial concerned a family law dispute over custody, parenting arrangements, travel limitations, child support, and a restraining order.

The father sought joint custody and equal parenting time, while the mother sought sole custody and restricted access.

The court awarded the mother sole custody with consultation rights for the father, but granted the father equal parenting time on a week-on/week-off schedule.

Both parents were permitted to travel internationally with the child, subject to reasonable consent and notice.

The father was ordered to pay child support until the equal parenting time commenced, with no retroactive support.

The mother's request for a full restraining order was denied, but a non-communication order was maintained.

The applicant stepfather sought an order to dispense with the biological father's consent for the adoption of the child, C.S.L.K., pursuant to the Child and Family Services Act.

The biological mother and child consented to the adoption, but the biological father objected, wishing to be part of his son's life.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the mother had actively attempted to exclude the father from the child's life and that it was in the child's best interests to be afforded the opportunity to know his biological father and paternal family, as the adoption would irrevocably sever these ties without evidence that the child's current stable environment would be disrupted otherwise.

The respondent father moved for joint custody, increased parenting time, a relocation restriction, a custody/access assessment, and child support.

The applicant mother cross-moved for sole custody, reduced parenting time, permission to relocate, and child support.

The court declined to make an interim custody order, maintained the existing parenting schedule, ordered an update to the Office of the Children's Lawyer report instead of a full assessment, set child support payable by the father based on his 2015 income, and restricted the mother from relocating the child beyond a 15 km radius from her current residence without a further court order.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change seeking retroactive and ongoing child support, and a sharing of special and extraordinary expenses.

The court determined the father's income for support purposes by adding back capital cost allowance for real property and unreasonably deducted home-use expenses.

Retroactive child support was ordered from 2009, based on the date formal notice was provided, rather than 2007 as sought by the mother or 2010 as offered by the father.

Ongoing child support was set based on an imputed annual income of $100,000.

The parties were ordered to share section 7 expenses proportionally, but specific post-secondary expense orders were deferred due to a lack of evidence.

The father's failure to provide timely financial disclosure was noted as blameworthy conduct.

Following a trial, the court issued an endorsement addressing unresolved issues concerning spousal and child support calculations for the years 2012-2015.

The original decision ordered Mr. Curry to pay support providing Mrs. Curry with 60% of Net Disposable Income, retroactively.

The parties were directed to complete Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) calculations but disagreed on attributed incomes, particularly regarding Mrs. Curry's income from a 2012 Trust and its credit towards equalization, and Mr. Curry's undeclared trust monies.

The court identified specific issues for resolution and directed a further hearing to determine if it was functus officio on hearing income evidence for those years and if new evidence is permissible for retroactive support determination.

The court rendered a costs endorsement following a motion by the respondent to strike the applicant's pleadings for failure to provide financial disclosure.

Although the underlying motion was dismissed because the applicant provided the bulk of the disclosure after being served, the court found the applicant's compliance was solely due to the respondent bringing the motion.

Applying Family Law Rule 24, the court determined the applicant's conduct was unreasonable and awarded costs to the respondent, emphasizing that parties should not be forced to bring motions to ensure compliance with court orders.

Le père a présenté une motion et la mère une motion reconventionnelle concernant la garde des enfants, l'horaire de résidence, les voyages, le transport, la garderie, l'évaluation orthophonique d'un enfant, l'aide psychologique pour l'autre enfant et la présence des enfants à un accouchement.

La Cour a maintenu le statu quo pour l'horaire de résidence et la garde par les grands-parents maternels, a ordonné l'évaluation orthophonique de Sara par le CHEO, et a rejeté les demandes d'aide psychologique pour Emma et l'ordonnance concernant l'accouchement.

La Cour a également précisé que la mère n'avait pas besoin d'une ordonnance pour critiquer le rapport d'expert, la recevabilité étant une question pour le juge du procès.

The Applicant brought a motion to change, seeking to terminate or reduce her spousal support obligation to the Respondent, retroactive to December 1, 2014, citing her new family obligations and financial hardship.

The Respondent opposed, requesting higher support due to his ongoing medical issues and inability to work.

The court, treating the matter as a review, reduced spousal support retroactively to $800 per month and prospectively to $1,000 per month, departing from the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) ranges.

This departure was justified by the Applicant's new biological children and her assumption of significant marital debts, as well as the Respondent's continued need for support.

A further review was ordered for June 2018 to assess the Respondent's medical condition and efforts towards self-sufficiency.

Following a motion regarding child support and post-secondary educational costs, both parties sought costs.

The mother sought partial indemnity costs of $8,000 to $10,000, while the father sought costs of $27,019.12.

The court found that there was divided success, as the mother was successful in obtaining a contribution for post-secondary expenses and life insurance proof, while the father was successful in having support based on his actual income.

Neither party beat their respective offers to settle.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The court rendered a costs endorsement following a motion regarding child support.

Both the father and mother sought costs, claiming divided success.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle and considered factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, including the importance and complexity of issues, reasonableness of behaviour, lawyers' rates, time spent, and expenses.

The court found divided success and that neither party's offer was as favourable as or more favourable than the final award.

Consequently, no costs were ordered.

The Respondent brought a motion seeking to strike the Applicant's pleadings or dismiss her application due to her persistent failure to provide court-ordered financial disclosure and answers to undertakings.

The Applicant opposed, arguing substantial compliance since the motion's service.

The court found the Applicant had a history of non-compliance, exacerbated by her counsel's medical issues, but noted significant disclosure was provided after the motion was served.

While acknowledging the Applicant's failure to comply with timelines, the court deemed striking pleadings a draconian remedy.

The motion to strike was dismissed, but the Applicant was ordered to provide remaining specific disclosure by set dates, and certain undisclosed documents (psychiatric reports, medication lists) were barred from use at trial without leave.

The case was set for trial, and the Respondent was awarded costs for the motion.