Alexander Novak

This is a costs decision following a 10-day trial in a family law matter.

The Applicant father was substantially successful on primary issues including parenting and financial orders.

The court found the Respondent mother's conduct unreasonable due to her persistence in unsubstantiated abuse allegations, failure to make offers to settle, late abandonment of relocation relief, and non-compliance with court orders.

While bad faith was not established, the unreasonable conduct and the Applicant's reasonable offers to settle justified a costs award.

The court fixed costs on a substantial indemnity basis, deducting amounts related to criminal proceedings and significantly discounting law clerk fees for administrative tasks.

The Respondent was ordered to pay $130,000 in costs to the Applicant.

The applicant wife brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that the parties separated on September 1, 2014, rather than March 23, 2020, as alleged by the respondent husband.

The court applied the test for summary judgment and the indicia of separation, finding overwhelming evidence supporting the wife's separation date, including the husband's own emails and independent witness testimony.

The husband failed to produce evidence supporting his claimed date.

The court granted the motion, declaring the separation date as September 1, 2014, and dismissed the husband's equalization claims as statute-barred.

The parties separated and engaged in high-conflict family litigation.

The mother and her family influenced the young child to make false allegations of sexual abuse against the father, leading to criminal charges of which the father was ultimately acquitted.

The father was denied parenting time for over two years due to the allegations and the involvement of the Children's Aid Society.

The court found parental alienation occurred, though not necessarily with malice, and ordered a swift phased-in return to a 50/50 shared parenting schedule.

The court imputed income to the mother for child and spousal support purposes, ordered a brief continuation of spousal support, and dismissed the father's claim for malicious prosecution.

The father appealed a summary judgment decision that limited his access to his daughter, N.B., to written contact, subject to the child's wishes for further contact.

The father argued that the summary judgment judge improperly considered hearsay evidence and failed to apply principles of justice and fairness.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error.

The court emphasized that the summary judgment judge's decision was child-focused, based on N.B.'s expressed fears and wishes, and that the father had not sought to cross-examine deponents or introduce fresh evidence at the appropriate time.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay spousal support of $1,500 per month for a two-year period following a short arranged marriage.

He argued the trial judge erred by considering impermissible evidence regarding the respondent's health and by failing to properly apply the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or misapprehension of evidence, noting the trial judge properly based entitlement on the immigration sponsorship agreement and adequately explained his departure from the Guidelines.