Adriana Doyle

The applicant brought a motion to change a final order to terminate spousal support, citing a material change in circumstances due to his job loss and the respondent's increased income.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for retroactive section 7 expenses for the children's post-secondary education and a motion for contempt regarding the applicant's failure to maintain life insurance.

The court found a material change in circumstances and terminated spousal support.

The court dismissed the claim for retroactive section 7 expenses due to the respondent's significant delay and the children's ability to fund their own education.

The contempt motion was also dismissed because the original order lacked a specific amount for the life insurance policy.

The Family Responsibility Office brought a motion for a Warrant of Committal against the respondent for failing to pay child support arrears.

The respondent had a history of non-compliance but argued that he was unemployed, the child now resided with him, and he was financially supporting the child's athletic pursuits.

The court found a material change in circumstances since the previous default order and suspended the issuance of the warrant, ordering the respondent to file a motion to change the support order.

The court determined costs following motions for an adjournment and interim spousal support.

The respondent sought over $32,000 in costs, relying on an offer to settle that was more favourable than the spousal support order obtained by the applicant.

The court found the respondent's costs excessive and noted that his denial of spousal support entitlement unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings.

The applicant was ordered to pay $6,000 in costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis.

Following a temporary order regarding access, child support, and the sale of the matrimonial home, the court considered the parties' written submissions on costs.

The court noted that both the applicant and the respondent achieved divided success on the various issues.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and finding no bad faith, the court concluded that no order as to costs was appropriate.

The applicant, who resides outside Ontario, applied under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act to rescind approximately $83,000 in support arrears.

The respondent brought a motion seeking to cross-examine the applicant on his affidavit and financial disclosure.

The court held that the Family Law Rules apply to ISOA proceedings and granted the motion, ordering the applicant to attend questioning in Ontario due to his history of chronic non-payment.

The respondent brought a motion to strike portions of the applicant's Change Information Form filed in support of a motion to vary a final spousal support order.

The respondent argued that the impugned paragraphs contained allegations of events predating the final order and offended the principles of issue estoppel or res judicata.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the paragraphs raised a question of law regarding issue estoppel, the trial judge was in a better position to determine the relevance of the evidence in the context of the objectives of spousal support under the Divorce Act.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion to dismiss the applicant's claim for child support, the applicant sought costs of $7,402.62.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, noting the complexity of the jurisdiction issue and the mixed conduct of both parties.

Taking into account the respondent's limited ability to pay and his obligations in Russia, the court awarded the applicant reduced costs of $1,019.83.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following an interim order regarding child access and spousal support.

The applicant mother sought $5,000 in costs, arguing substantial success on spousal support and parenting arrangements.

The respondent father argued for no costs or a reduced amount, citing mixed success and the mother's alleged unreasonableness.

Applying Family Law Rule 24, the court found the mother successful on spousal support and that the parenting outcome was more aligned with her proposal.

The court ordered the father to pay the mother $2,500 in costs.

The applicant sought full recovery costs after an interim order granted her significant child and spousal support, a non-depletion order, and other relief, based on the respondent's significantly higher income.

The respondent argued for divided success.

The court found the applicant more successful on major issues, particularly spousal support and the non-depletion order, and awarded partial indemnity costs of $2,500 to the applicant, considering the importance and complexity of issues, parties' behaviour, and counsel's reasonable rates.

The respondent sought to dismiss the applicant's child support claim in Ontario for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the applicant and child reside in Russia, a non-reciprocating jurisdiction, and that Ontario was *forum non conveniens*.

The applicant, residing in Russia, sought an Ontario order for enforceability due to the respondent's irregular payments.

The court found it had "presence-based" jurisdiction over the respondent, who lives in Ontario, and that the *Family Law Act* does not require the child to reside in Ontario.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, assuming jurisdiction and applying Ontario law, conditional on the applicant vacating the Russian support order.

The applicant sought costs following a motion where the respondent was found to be non-compliant with previous court orders regarding the sale of the matrimonial home and disclosure of medical information.

The applicant requested costs on a substantial indemnity basis, citing the respondent's failure to comply with a separation agreement and court orders.

The respondent argued for no costs due to disability and divided success.

The court, applying Rule 24 factors, found the applicant largely successful and awarded partial indemnity costs of $3,500, noting the respondent's unreasonable behaviour and financial capacity.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, continued medical and dental coverage, and a life insurance designation following a 16-year relationship.

The respondent consented to the medical and dental coverage but opposed the support and life insurance claims.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie entitlement to needs-based support due to her financial dependence during the relationship and her ongoing medical needs.

The court ordered interim spousal support of $1,711 per month, representing the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, and ordered the respondent to designate the applicant as the irrevocable beneficiary of a $250,000 life insurance policy to secure the support.

The applicant moved to vary spousal support based on an amending separation agreement registered under the Family Law Act, arguing it became an order under the Divorce Act and a material change in circumstances (19% income reduction) justified a reduction.

The respondent opposed, arguing it should be treated as an initial application under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act, not a variation under s. 17, as the agreement was not incorporated into a divorce order.

The court found that an agreement registered under the Family Law Act does not become an order under the Divorce Act for variation purposes and that neither party had properly brought an application under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act.

The motion was dismissed, but the parties were given 30 days to address the court on how to proceed.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion by the Respondent to vary a final order concerning child support, retroactive adjustments, and section 7 expenses.

The court found mixed success for both parties on the substantive issues.

Considering the factors under Family Law Rule 24(11), including the importance and complexity of the issues, the reasonableness of each party's behavior, and counsel's rates, the court determined that the Respondent's unreasonable conduct, such as failing to comply with disclosure orders and a settlement conference requirement, warranted no award of costs to either party despite the mixed outcome.

The applicant mother and respondent father brought cross-motions for interim parenting orders and spousal support.

The father sought joint custody and equal time, while the mother sought a specific parenting schedule and $2,000 monthly spousal support.

The court maintained the existing interim parenting schedule, finding it to be in the child's best interests given his sensitivity to change.

The court also found the mother entitled to interim spousal support on a non-compensatory basis, awarding her $2,000 per month, recognizing the relationship as one of "some permanence" under the Family Law Act despite its short duration.

The court considered costs following a 16-day family law trial concerning custody, access, and child support.

The applicant father sought substantial indemnity costs of $32,744.50, arguing success on most issues and the respondent mother's bad faith.

The respondent mother argued that prior costs were determined by Justice Shelston and that the father caused trial delays.

Applying Family Law Rule 24(11), the court found mixed success for both parties and noted unreasonable behaviour from both, including the father's breaches of interim orders and the mother's unreasonable position on travel.

Given the mixed success and the parties' conduct, the court ordered no costs.

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.