Alexandra Kirschbaum

This uncontested family law trial concerns Sophia Kay Hill’s application for divorce, occupation rent, direction for disbursement of the net proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home, and costs.

The court granted the divorce and awarded occupation rent to Ms. Hill, finding that Mr. Hill delayed proceedings, failed to comply with court orders, and did not pay his share of carrying costs.

The court also directed the disbursement of sale proceeds, with deductions for various costs and awards, and awarded Ms. Hill 70% of her costs, amounting to $19,000.

The court issued supplementary reasons to its trial decision, addressing unresolved calculations for spousal support and costs.

The applicant sought to reduce spousal support based on changes in child care arrangements and the respondent's increased investment income, arguing for a re-evaluation of Net Disposable Income (NDI).

The court clarified that NDI calculations are a tool, not a fixed target, and that the goal is roughly equivalent living standards.

Spousal support was fixed at $1,400 per month, a figure at the lower end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines given the change in parenting.

The court also provided directions for finalizing the judgment and resolving costs.

The Applicant, Karen Clark, sought full-recovery costs after successfully obtaining a valuation of the Respondent's business.

The Respondent, Corey Clark, argued for reduced costs due to alleged unreasonable conduct by the Applicant's prior counsel and unreasonable offers to settle.

The court found the Applicant was presumptively entitled to costs, her offers to settle were reasonable and more favorable than the outcome, and the Respondent's delayed disclosure of expert reports constituted unreasonable conduct, though not bad faith.

The court awarded the Applicant elevated fixed costs of $110,000, considering the complexity of the valuation, the parties' conduct, and the offers to settle.

The applicant sought to terminate or reduce spousal support obligations, effective December 9, 2021, and a reimbursement of past support, or alternatively, a reduction and termination date.

The respondent argued no material change occurred and sought an increase or maintenance of current support.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the applicant's retirement and health issues, but determined that spousal support should not terminate due to the respondent's disability and ongoing need.

The court ordered a lump sum payment of $125,000 from the applicant to the respondent for all past and future spousal support, emphasizing finality and financial clarity, and rejecting the respondent's higher lump sum request and the applicant's lower one.

This decision addresses the valuation of the Respondent's company, Ottawa Garage Door Systems Inc., for the purpose of equalization of net family property.

The Applicant sought a valuation of approximately $3.3 million, while the Respondent claimed approximately $2.2 million.

The court preferred the Applicant's expert's valuation, finding it more reliable due to its comprehensive consideration of the relevant financial period, appropriate risk assessment, objective treatment of remuneration, and consistent application of valuation principles.

The court fixed the company's value at $3,290,000.

This decision addresses the costs following a thirteen-day trial primarily focused on parenting arrangements, child support, spousal support, and the disposition of embryos.

The applicant father sought full indemnity costs, alleging the respondent mother's bad faith and unreasonable behaviour, and relying on his successful offers to settle.

The mother opposed full indemnity, citing her good faith efforts, financial hardship, and potential re-opening of a prior financial settlement.

The court found the father was the successful party and the mother's behaviour was unreasonable, though not necessarily bad faith.

The court also determined it lacked jurisdiction to order costs payable by pension transfer unless related to property division.

Balancing the father's entitlement with the parties' financial means and the children's best interests, the court ordered the mother to pay costs, providing three payment options.

This is Part II of a trial decision addressing ongoing child and spousal support, and the future of frozen embryos.

The court declined jurisdiction over the frozen embryos located in Massachusetts.

On spousal support, the court found no entitlement for the mother, imputing her income to a full-time equivalent, as her reduced work schedule was not justified by the children's needs or her health.

The court also determined child support obligations based on the parties' imputed incomes and shared parenting arrangements, including proportionate sharing of special and extraordinary expenses.

A divorce was granted.

In a high-conflict family law trial, the court determined the appropriate parenting schedule and decision-making responsibility for three children.

The mother made numerous allegations of family violence, sexual assault, and child abuse against the father, all of which were investigated by police and child protection services and found to be unsubstantiated.

The court found the mother's evidence lacked credibility and that she had engaged in a pattern of alienating behaviour, supported by the maternal grandparents, to unjustifiably restrict the father's parenting time.

The court ordered equal parenting time for the two younger children and a stepped-up reunification schedule for the eldest child, granting the father sole decision-making responsibility over the reunification therapy process.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking an interim order for shared or increased parenting time and joint decision-making responsibility for the parties' three children, along with co-parenting counselling.

The applicant mother opposed, alleging the father was neglectful and citing the two eldest children's wishes for limited time with him.

The court found it in the children's best interests to transition gradually to shared parenting with joint decision-making.

The court did not accept the mother's claims of neglect and found her unilateral conduct had contributed to the deterioration of the father-child relationship.

The motion was granted in favour of the father, with orders for counselling for the father and children, and co-parenting counselling for both parents.

In a child protection proceeding, the Office of the Children's Lawyer abandoned a request to present the children's views without a clinician's affidavit.

Counsel for the foster parents sought costs for the attendance and requested an adjournment of an upcoming summary judgment motion due to a scheduling conflict.

The court noted counsel's unprofessional conduct and mischaracterization of a previous hearing involving a student-at-law, but ultimately granted the adjournment to ensure the foster parents could be represented by their counsel of choice.

A timeline for written costs submissions was established.

The children's aid society brought a motion for a temporary supervision order to place a four-year-old Indigenous child in the care of the mother pending trial.

The child had been residing with a non-relative kin caregiver for approximately two years.

The court applied the federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, noting its paramountcy over provincial legislation and its priority of placement for parents.

Finding that the mother had made significant progress in mitigating child protection concerns and that a return to her care was in the child's best interests, the court granted the motion and ordered the child placed with the mother subject to society supervision.

This endorsement addresses a request for costs following motions heard on February 3, 2022.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $5,700, while the applicant argued no costs should be awarded.

The court found the respondent to be the more successful party overall, despite not obtaining the primary relief initially sought and abandoning some claims.

The applicant did not make an offer to settle, and her claim of divided success was rejected.

While the applicant's financial circumstances were noted, insufficient information prevented a reduction on that basis.

The respondent's costs were reduced due to non-compliance with the court's direction regarding the order of cost submissions.

The court awarded the respondent fixed costs of $3,000, payable in ten equal monthly instalments.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for the resumption of unsupervised parenting time and joint decision-making responsibility for the parties' eight-year-old child, having not seen the child since December 2020.

The respondent mother opposed unsupervised time, citing COVID-19 concerns and the father's past physical abuse of the child when she was an infant.

The court found that while the past abuse was highly concerning, the mother had previously allowed unsupervised access knowing of the abuse, and the passage of eight years mitigated the risk.

The court ordered unsupervised parenting time in accordance with a 2017 mediation agreement, joint decision-making with the mother having final say, and interim child support.

The appellant mother challenged the Ontario Superior Court's jurisdiction over her youngest child, who was born in the U.S. and had never been to Canada, in the context of temporary parenting orders.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's finding of jurisdiction, holding that the Superior Court had subject-matter jurisdiction under the Divorce Act because the father was ordinarily resident in Ontario.

Furthermore, the mother had attorned to the court's jurisdiction by actively participating in the merits of the underlying motions without formally challenging jurisdiction.

The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs due to the mother's reliance on public assistance.

The parties separated following a violent altercation resulting in criminal charges against the applicant father.

On this motion, both parties sought orders regarding parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and child support for their 21-month-old child.

The court granted the respondent mother sole decision-making responsibility and extended a no-contact order due to the history of family violence.

The court removed the supervision requirement for the father's parenting time and gradually increased his daytime visits, but denied overnight visits pending evidence of stability.

The father was also ordered to pay child support based on his reported income, subject to further financial disclosure.

The parties returned to court to address temporary parenting arrangements and the appointment of a section 30 assessor.

The father and paternal grandparents sought expanded, in-person parenting time during the summer, while the mother opposed in-person visits and requested that the assessment be conducted entirely virtually.

The court found that virtual visits had been positive and ordered the mother to travel to Ottawa with the children for the summer to facilitate graduated in-person visits.

The court also appointed the father's proposed assessor, requiring in-person observation visits due to the complex family dynamics and allegations of domestic violence.

The parties, who were held hostage in Afghanistan for five years, are engaged in a high-conflict family law dispute.

The mother previously obtained an interim order allowing her to relocate to Pennsylvania with the children, but instead moved to Virginia and cut off all contact between the children and their father and paternal grandparents.

The father, having been acquitted of criminal charges related to alleged abuse, brought a motion to have the children returned to Ontario and for custody or access.

The paternal grandparents also sought access.

The court declined to order the immediate return of the children to Ontario on an interim basis due to conflicting evidence, but ordered supervised virtual access for the father and virtual access for the paternal grandparents.

The court also affirmed its jurisdiction over the parties' fourth child born in the US, and ordered a section 30 parenting assessment.

The respondent father brought a motion for increased in-person or virtual access with his child, who was in the temporary care of the maternal grandmother under the supervision of the Children's Aid Society.

The Society and the Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the motion, citing the father's inappropriate behaviour during virtual visits and the child's stated preference to limit access.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father's conduct was not conducive to building a positive relationship and that increasing access was not in the child's best interests at this time.

The court determined custody of a child, Adriel, among his biological father (Hernandez), biological mother (Nikas), and long-term caregiver (Stewart).

The father initially sought custody but later supported the caregiver's claim.

The mother opposed both and sought primary care.

The court found the mother's lifestyle unstable, marked by drug use, conflict, and lack of insight into the child's needs, and that she had abdicated parental responsibilities for three years.

In contrast, the caregiver provided stability and a child-focused environment.

The court granted sole custody to the caregiver, Kelsie Stewart, emphasizing the child's best interests over biological ties, and ordered specific access for both parents.

Child support was also addressed.

The mother, father, and the maternal aunt and uncle (the McCormicks) brought competing motions regarding the residence of the three children.

The father, who shared joint custody with the McCormicks, sought permission to relocate with the children from London to Lindsay for employment.

The mother and the McCormicks opposed the move and sought to have the children placed in their care.

The court granted the father's motion to relocate, finding it in the children's best interests as it allowed the father to secure employment and remain the primary caregiver, subject to modifications in transportation and access schedules.

The motions by the mother and the McCormicks were dismissed.