Adriana Doyle

The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking an order for equal time sharing of the child, preventing the applicant mother from removing the child from the jurisdiction, and the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).

The applicant mother opposed the urgency of the motion, except for the OCL appointment.

The court dismissed the father's request for an urgent motion regarding the parenting schedule and daycare, finding these issues were not urgent enough to bypass a case conference.

However, the court found the potential flight risk and abduction concerning the mother's stated intention to move to Halifax with the child to be urgent, and ordered that the child not be moved from Ottawa's jurisdiction without the father's consent or further court order.

The OCL involvement was reserved for the case conference.

The Court rendered a costs endorsement following a six-day trial in a family law matter.

The applicant wife was found to be the successful party, having obtained a judgment more favourable than her offer to settle, which included an equalization payment and lump-sum spousal support.

The court awarded the wife $65,000 in costs (inclusive of HST and disbursements) against the husband and his company, Local Motion Transportation Inc., out of $147,642.86 claimed.

The court declined to make a vesting order for costs but ruled that $32,500 of the awarded costs would be enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) as support-related costs, given the husband's assignment into bankruptcy.

The court considered the parties' conduct, the complexity of issues, and proportionality, but did not find the husband acted in bad faith to warrant full indemnity costs.

The applicant sought orders to dispense with the respondent's consent for the sale of the matrimonial home, disburse sale proceeds according to their separation agreement, and grant exclusive possession of the home.

The respondent consented to the listing and sale but wished to remain in the home, raising concerns about his capacity to enter the separation agreement.

The court declined to dispense with the respondent's consent for sale and denied exclusive possession at that time, finding no immediate evidence of non-cooperation.

However, the court ordered the home to be listed for sale within strict timelines, with both parties required to cooperate fully on all aspects of the sale process.

The issue of exclusive possession was adjourned, to be revisited if the respondent failed to comply with the sale orders.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of a father's motion for summary judgment and a change in parenting arrangements, where the court ordered him to pay child support.

The respondent mother was deemed the successful party on the major issues of joint custody and parenting, and secured a higher child support amount than she had offered.

However, the applicant father succeeded on a minor issue regarding the reimbursement of Dr. Smyth's report costs.

Applying Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, the court considered the importance and complexity of the issues, the parties' conduct, counsel's rates, time spent, and the father's financial capacity.

The court awarded the mother $4,000 in costs, noting that her legal aid status does not diminish the costs award.

The respondent mother sought to change a child support agreement, including a sharing of post-secondary expenses and proof of a life insurance policy.

The applicant father objected, citing unemployment and seeking a retroactive adjustment.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to income changes and a child attending university.

The court imputed income to the father, finding his decision to leave his lucrative employment in Vietnam without securing new full-time work in England unreasonable, thereby prioritizing his own interests over his children's support needs.

Child support was adjusted retroactively based on the imputed income, and the father was ordered to contribute to post-secondary expenses and provide proof of an irrevocable life insurance designation.

The applicant father brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a purported settlement agreement regarding custody and access, or alternatively, for an interim order granting him sole custody based on a custody assessment.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing she did not accept the offer and that the status quo of shared parenting should remain pending trial.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding the mother's response was a counter-offer and there was no meeting of the minds.

The court also dismissed the request to change the interim parenting arrangement, finding no exceptional circumstances to alter the status quo.

The father was ordered to pay set-off child support of $809 per month, and the mother was ordered to pay half the cost of the custody assessment.

The parties separated after a 20-year marriage.

The husband, a high-income earner, recently negotiated a transition agreement ending his employment at the end of 2016, reducing his income.

The wife, who had been a stay-at-home mother and worked part-time as a supply teacher, sought spousal and child support based on his previous higher income.

The court accepted the husband's projected 2016 income of $433,621, imputed an income of $20,000 to the wife, and ordered child support for three children (increasing to four when the eldest returns).

Spousal support was set at 60% of the Net Disposable Income.

The court declined to order a review of support at the end of 2016 and allowed the husband to continue managing the children's trust funds.

Following a motion regarding child support and section 7 expenses, both parties sought costs.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle, finding that neither party presented an offer that was as favourable or more favourable than the final award.

Considering the divided success, the complexities of the section 7 expenses, and the absence of bad faith by either party, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

Following a decision on interim motions regarding spousal support, child support, and financial disclosure, the court considered the issue of costs.

Both parties had brought motions and achieved divided success.

The court reviewed the offers to settle and the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

Given the divided success, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The parties separated after a 31-year traditional marriage.

The applicant sought an equalization of net family property, spousal support, and a vesting order against a property owned by the respondent's corporation.

The court imputed an income of $50,000 to the respondent due to unreported cash income from his taxi business and non-compliance with financial disclosure.

The court ordered an equalization payment of $168,132.53 and a lump sum spousal support payment of $50,000.

Due to the respondent's history of defying court orders, the court pierced the corporate veil and granted a vesting order over the corporately-owned property to satisfy the equalization payment.

The mother brought a motion to change a previous child support order, seeking increased Table support and contribution to section 7 expenses for three children, including private school and university tuition.

The father brought a cross-motion requesting to pay section 7 expenses directly to third parties.

The court determined the father's income to be $372,500 and ordered him to pay $4,970 per month in Table support.

The court also ordered the father to pay his 77% proportionate share of various section 7 expenses, including university tuition, private school fees, and orthodontic work, but denied several other claimed expenses such as gym memberships and snowboarding.

The father's request to pay third parties directly was dismissed.

A parenting dispute concerning custody, parenting time, and child support for a young child.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and reduced mid‑week access, while the respondent father requested expanded parenting time approximating a 60/40 schedule.

Applying the best‑interests test under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court found both parents capable and sufficiently able to communicate to sustain joint custody.

Joint custody was maintained with primary residence with the mother and expanded weekend parenting time for the father.

The court also ordered ongoing child support, retroactive support, and payment of retroactive dental expenses.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order compelling the parties to resolve their parenting disputes through arbitration pursuant to clauses contained in a prior divorce order.

The respondent initially challenged the court’s jurisdiction based on the arbitration clause but later consented to having the issues determined by the court.

The court held that the applicant could not invoke the arbitration clause after having already commenced litigation to modify the arbitration outcome and after strategically changing positions.

Interpreting s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, the court concluded that a party who initiated court proceedings cannot seek a stay in favour of arbitration.

The court exercised jurisdiction to determine the parenting issues.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for a temporary court order placing the two-year-old child with the paternal grandmother.

The child had previously been residing with the maternal grandparents under a temporary supervision order, which included a condition that the mother not reside in their home.

The maternal grandparents breached this condition when the mother arrived in distress, leading to the child's apprehension.

The court found that the maternal grandparents had provided good care for two years and now understood the necessity of complying with the order.

The court ordered the child returned to the maternal grandparents under a temporary supervision order with conditions.

The applicant brought a motion to modify prior parenting arrangements, seeking authority over major decisions affecting the child, including schooling, daycare, and primary residence.

The dispute concerned which school the child should attend for the 2015–2016 school year, as well as daycare placement and interim primary residence.

The court applied the best interests of the child analysis under s. 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act and considered extensive evidence regarding the child’s special needs, including autism spectrum disorder and ADHD.

Emphasizing the importance of stability and routine for a child with special needs, the court concluded that a further school change immediately before the start of the school year would not be in the child’s best interests.

The court ordered that the child continue attending the existing school and daycare, with primary residence remaining with the father on an interim basis pending the final decision.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a divorce order relating to custody and support, seeking custody and ongoing child support, while the respondent father sought a retroactive adjustment of child and spousal support from February 2013.

The court found a material change in circumstances, including the mother’s employment and changes in the children’s post‑secondary living arrangements.

The court imputed income to the father under s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, finding him under‑employed.

Updated child support and spousal support obligations were ordered prospectively, and certain section 7 expenses were allowed.

After accounting for retroactive adjustments and overpayments, the court concluded that no monies were owing between the parties.

In a high‑conflict parenting dispute concerning a six‑year‑old child who had lived in a shared parenting arrangement since separation, the applicant sought sole custody and reduced access while the respondent sought equal shared parenting or sole custody.

Evidence showed both parents were capable caregivers but had severe communication conflict and repeated disputes involving police and child protection authorities.

The court rejected sole custody for either parent, finding that granting exclusive decision‑making could marginalize the other parent.

Instead, the court implemented a structured parallel‑style parenting regime with equal week‑on/week‑off parenting time and divided decision‑making authority across domains.

Child support was set using the set‑off method for shared parenting and retroactive support was partially adjusted.

The moving party sought an order permitting her to obtain a passport for the parties’ young child and to travel with the child to Algeria without the other parent’s consent.

The responding parent opposed the travel request due to security concerns arising from Canadian travel advisories and the fact that Algeria is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The court balanced the benefits of the child maintaining contact with extended family against the risks associated with travel and the possibility of non‑return.

The court concluded that the risks outweighed the benefits for the proposed trip.

The passport request was granted, but the request to travel with the child to Algeria was denied.

The applicant brought a motion to vary an interim spousal support order, arguing a material change in circumstances due to job loss and reliance on Employment Insurance.

The respondent opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to transfer ownership of a vehicle.

The court found a material change in circumstances and reduced the applicant's spousal support obligation from $1,500 to $640 per month.

The respondent's motion for summary judgment regarding the vehicle was dismissed as there were triable issues regarding contributions to the vehicle.

Décision portant uniquement sur les dépens après une motion en droit de la famille concernant l'horaire parental, les vacances estivales et les activités sportives des enfants.

La Cour a appliqué les règles 24(1), 24(11) et 18(14) des Règles en matière de droit de la famille, concluant que le succès était partagé mais que l'intimé avait obtenu davantage de succès.

La Cour a aussi tenu compte du caractère tardif de l'offre de règlement de l'intimé et de la capacité de payer de la requérante.

Des dépens de 500 $ ont été accordés à l'intimé.