Alex Finlayson

Following a lengthy child protection trial, the two fathers sought costs against the self-represented mother.

The court found that while child protection cases are an exception to the presumptive entitlement to costs, the mother's bad faith behavior, which included a meritless constitutional challenge and breaches of court orders, warranted a costs sanction.

The court ordered the mother to pay $10,000 to one father and $5,000 to the other, payable in monthly installments.

The applicant husband sought recognition of an Australian divorce obtained while he was secretly maintaining a second family and engaging in intimate partner violence.

The respondent wife opposed the recognition and sought child and spousal support.

The court refused to recognize the foreign divorce, finding it was obtained through fraud, lack of notice, unfair forum shopping, and coercion stemming from intimate partner violence.

The court fixed the date of separation as the date the wife discovered the husband's remarriage, ordered temporary child and spousal support, and directed the sale of the matrimonial home.

On a long motion in a family law proceeding, the respondent wife sought a substantial interim disbursement to fund valuation, forensic document review, and future litigation steps in a dispute involving alleged improper sale of a matrimonial home, disputed intrafamily loans, equalization, and support.

The court held that the threshold merit standard on an interim disbursement motion is not onerous and found sufficient merit in the wife's claims concerning the separation date, the characterization of the property transaction, the legitimacy or discounting of alleged debts to the paternal grandparents, and the need to test the husband's business valuation and income evidence.

The court further found that the wife lacked the means to pursue the litigation, that the playing field was not level, and that the husband had or could access resources to pay.

The requested amount was reduced for proportionality, and an interim disbursement of $137,500.00 was ordered within 30 days.

Following a lengthy child protection trial involving two children, three parents, extensive lay and professional evidence, and multiple preliminary motions, the court dismissed the mother’s constitutional challenge and found both children in need of protection under the CYFSA.

The court found serious risks arising from chronic family violence and conflict, physical discipline, coached false sexual-abuse allegations, educational neglect, health-care mismanagement, abusive social media conduct, vexatious complaints and litigation behaviour, and significant untreated mental health concerns.

The court accepted the court-ordered psychological evidence diagnosing ADHD and borderline personality disorder, rejected the mother’s effort to prove sexual abuse by one father, and admitted certain recordings including Ring camera evidence while limiting other recordings to non-hearsay use.

Final s. 102 orders placed each child with his respective father, imposed strict supervised access and extensive conduct restrictions on the mother, granted a restraining order in favour of one father, and imposed a two-year moratorium plus leave requirement for any future motion to change.

The court also dismissed the mother’s post-trial motion and deferred any costs process.

The parties separated after 16 years of marriage.

The father was criminally charged and subsequently breached a temporary court order requiring him to maintain the family's financial status quo.

On the mother's motion for financial relief, the court found the father in breach of the prior order and directed the sale of the matrimonial home.

To remedy the breach and provide support, the court ordered the father to pay $357,180 in lump sum retroactive child and spousal support, $30,000 in costs for an abandoned parenting motion, and $150,000 in interim disbursements, all to be paid from his share of the home's net sale proceeds.

The father brought a 14B motion seeking leave to commence a Motion to Change the parenting terms of a final judgment that restricted him to supervised virtual parenting time.

The prior judgment required the father to complete specific preconditions, including obtaining a comprehensive psychological assessment and engaging in targeted therapy, before seeking leave.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father's psychological assessment was unreliable and not comprehensive, his therapy evidence was insufficient, and his behaviour during supervised visits demonstrated ongoing ungovernability and failure to shield the child from adult conflict.

Family law trial involving equalization of net family property, spousal support, post-separation adjustments, and intentional tort claims.

The court found that the applicant wife owed the respondent husband a nominal equalization payment of $973.70, which was set off against post-separation rent adjustments of $14,364.63 owed by the husband, resulting in a net payment of $13,390.93 to the wife.

Spousal support was awarded at $4,000.00 per month commencing March 1, 2026, front-end loaded, with the court accepting a cohabitation start date of November 7, 2011 following credibility findings against both parties.

The wife's claim for damages in tort (battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress) was dismissed in its entirety.

Following a 16-day family law trial, the mother sought full recovery costs of $342,216.40 based on her success, an offer to settle, and the father's bad faith.

The court found the mother achieved a more favourable result than her offer regarding parenting and child support, but not property division.

The court also found the father engaged in bad faith conduct during the trial.

The mother was awarded costs of $220,000 on a full recovery basis for the issues on which she was successful.

The court also ordered the father to pay $5,256.33 in outstanding section 7 expenses and dismissed his post-trial motion to rent out the jointly owned property.

A complex family law trial involving a 13-year-old child (L.) born to unmarried parents who cohabited for approximately 7.5 years before separating in April 2020.

The case involved disputes over the validity of a March 2022 Separation Agreement, an alleged fraudulent "Cohabitation and Mortgage Agreement" parenting arrangements, child support, and division of a jointly-owned property (the Thornhill Property).

The trial revealed a pattern of family violence perpetrated by the father against the mother, including physical assaults, property destruction, and verbal abuse.

The child was repeatedly exposed to this conflict.

The court found the father has serious anger management issues and likely an undiagnosed mental health disorder.

The mother was awarded primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility for the child.

The father's parenting time was limited to supervised virtual visits of 30 minutes every other week, with strict conditions.

The court imputed income of $200,000 to the father for child support purposes and ordered him to pay $1,659 per month commencing February 1, 2025 (increasing to $1,707 as of October 1, 2025).

The court enforced the property provisions of the Separation Agreement, ordering the father to pay the mother $250,000 plus prejudgment interest of $42,174.93 for her interest in the Thornhill Property.

The trial was marked by significant procedural challenges, including the father's disruptive courtroom conduct, multiple mid-trial motions, and extensive document management issues.

This decision addresses a high-conflict parenting dispute between H.S. (mother) and D.N. (father) involving two children.

The court considers whether to implement the recommendations of a section 30 assessment report pending trial, including supervised parenting time for the father and decision-making authority for the mother.

The court finds compelling circumstances to intervene prior to trial, citing ongoing parental conflict, emotional harm to the children, non-compliance with court orders, and gaps in evidence caused by the father's lack of cooperation.

The court orders supervised parenting time for the father, grants the mother decision-making authority, and sets out steps to address outstanding assessment and disclosure issues to ensure trial readiness.

This decision concerns an appeal from a family arbitration award regarding the proper method for valuing a foreign property (in Egypt) for equalization purposes under Ontario’s Family Law Act.

The applicant (wife) argued for alternative exchange rate methodologies to avoid a "phantom loss" due to currency devaluation, while the respondent (husband) and the arbitrator applied the statutory approach of using the exchange rates at the date of marriage and the valuation date.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the arbitrator’s approach correct and consistent with the legislative scheme, and awarded costs to the respondent.

This supplementary judgment addresses the penalty for the husband's contempt of court, including the violation of a mareva injunction and preservation order, the issue of a stay pending appeal, costs, mathematical corrections, and further procedural matters.

The court imposes a 90-day custodial sentence, finds the husband acted in bad faith, and awards costs to the wife.

The judgment also addresses the husband's request for a stay, the process for varying the sentence if the husband purges his contempt, and the next steps in related proceedings.

This decision addresses whether a person who was formerly married and divorced (including by foreign divorce) can apply for spousal support under Ontario’s Family Law Act.

The court finds that a divorce, whether foreign or domestic, does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to order spousal support under the Family Law Act.

The decision reviews and departs from prior appellate authority, relying on statutory interpretation, legislative purpose, and recent appellate commentary suggesting the law is “ripe for reconsideration.” The court also addresses the alternative basis for support where the parties resumed cohabitation after the foreign divorce.

The applicant father unilaterally removed two young children from their habitual residence in Fort McMurray, Alberta, to Ontario, claiming it was for a "vacation." The respondent mother sought the children's immediate return to Alberta, arguing it was their habitual residence and that the father's removal was wrongful.

The father sought to establish Ontario's jurisdiction and limit the mother's parenting time.

The court found that Alberta remained the children's habitual residence, that the mother had neither acquiesced nor unduly delayed in seeking their return, and that the father's actions were inappropriate and irresponsible.

The court declined jurisdiction over the merits of the parenting dispute and ordered the children's immediate return to Alberta, with the Alberta Court of Justice to handle future parenting and child support matters.

Following a trial and summary judgment motion regarding family law issues, the court determined costs.

The mother sought full indemnity costs of $331,780.36 based on offers to settle, while the self-represented father did not file submissions.

The court found the mother's offers did not trigger full recovery under Rule 18(14) but awarded her partial indemnity costs of $189,191.95 as the successful party, with 75% of the costs enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office as an incident of support.

The parties separated in 2019 and entered into a final settlement regarding property and spousal support in 2020, but child support remained unresolved.

The mother sought retroactive and ongoing child support, while the father brought a motion to change the parenting order to shared parenting and sought to set aside the property settlement.

The court found that the father had engaged in significant family violence, coercive control, and physical discipline, which constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and curtailed the father's parenting time, making its expansion conditional on his completion of the Brayden Nurturing Parent Program and individual therapy.

The father was also ordered to pay $99,432.23 in retroactive child support and section 7 expenses, and his request to set aside the property settlement was dismissed.

The applicant husband and respondent wife separated in 2009 after a 10-year marriage marked by family violence.

The husband initiated the proceeding in 2010 but subsequently engaged in a 14-year pattern of chronic non-disclosure, hiding assets in offshore accounts, and breaching numerous court orders, resulting in his pleadings being struck.

Following an uncontested trial, the court drew adverse inferences against the husband and imputed his income at $300,000 for 2010-2017 and $200,828 thereafter.

The court ordered the husband to pay an equalization payment of $2,670,870.32, plus prejudgment interest of $791,455.71, and a lump sum of $1,231,355.39 for retroactive and prospective child and spousal support.

The court also found the husband in contempt for breaching a 2019 Mareva injunction, pierced the corporate veil of his companies to enforce the judgment, and granted the wife leave to bring a contempt motion against the husband's former counsel.

The parties separated after a 12-year marriage during which they lived in Switzerland.

The mother relocated to Ontario with their two children, one of whom has severe autism.

The father remained in Switzerland, earning a high income subject to lower tax rates.

At trial, the court determined the father's income for support purposes, rejecting his argument for a downward adjustment based on Switzerland's higher cost of living.

The court also refused to impute income to the mother, finding her unemployment was required to care for the children.

The court awarded the mother an equalization payment, retroactive section 7 expenses, a lump sum for retroactive spousal support, and ongoing spousal support of $10,000 per month, adjusting the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines calculations to account for the father's foreign tax advantages.

The Children and Family Services for York Region brought a Status Review Application concerning two young children, E. and J., who were removed from their parents' care due to the mother's severe alcohol misuse and the father's schizophrenia and lack of parenting skills.

The Society sought final custody orders for the maternal grandmother (for E.) and the paternal aunt (for J.), which were granted.

The court found the children continued to be in need of protection and that permanent placements with the caregivers were in their best interests, emphasizing stability and continuity of care.

While the parents' plans for return were deemed unviable, the court made temporary access orders and adjourned the access portion of the trial to allow parties to develop a more workable plan, with conditions imposed on parents to address their issues and improve their support networks.

This is a costs judgment following a 19-day family law trial.

The court addressed outstanding issues of costs and the division of religious holidays.

The applicant mother was found to be substantially successful on all parenting and financial issues, while the respondent father was "unquestionably unsuccessful." The court found the father engaged in pervasive bad faith conduct, including disparaging the mother, interfering with her relationship with the child, misusing her private journals, spreading misinformation about her health, engaging in family violence, and making unfounded allegations against professionals.

Despite the bad faith finding, the court reduced the mother's requested costs for proportionality, awarding $240,000.

The court also ordered a specific division of religious holidays based on the mother's proposal, with minor adjustments to exchange times.