Alex Finlayson

Appeal from trial judge's decisions regarding spousal and child support, and division of family home value in a common-law relationship of over 16 years.

The trial judge found a joint family venture and awarded the respondent $595,530 as her share of the family home, imputed $150,000 annual income to the appellant, and ordered costs of $280,000.

The appellate court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the respondent's share to $527,000 by deducting the outstanding mortgage balance, but upheld the imputation of income and dismissed the cross-appeal and motion for leave to appeal costs.

In this highly contested family law motion, the court addressed competing disclosure and procedural requests from both parents in a custody and access dispute involving allegations of sexual abuse.

The respondent sought production of communications with experts and the applicant's mental health records, while the applicant sought questioning of the respondent and an expert, as well as Crown disclosure.

The court granted partial relief to both parties, balancing the need for fair trial preparation against privacy interests and litigation efficiency.

The court approved mutual questioning of the parties but denied questioning of the jointly retained expert, granted production of the applicant's mental health records to the respondent's counsel (with restrictions), denied production of privileged communications with experts, and ordered a structured timeline for Crown disclosure.

The parties separated after a 20-year marriage during which they built a successful recreational equipment business.

The trial judge ordered the husband to pay $9,584 per month in spousal support, attributing $400,000 in annual income to him based on past corporate profits.

The husband appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by failing to apply the Child Support Guidelines to determine the husband's income and by adopting an unreasonable approach to estimating future corporate profits.

The Court reassessed the husband's income at $214,872 and the wife's income at $109,535, and substituted a spousal support order of $1,500 per month.

The applicant sought costs of $20,000 following a motion for disclosure where success was divided, and the respondent's cross-motion for bifurcation was dismissed.

The respondent proposed costs of $7,500 payable in the cause.

The court declined to order costs in the cause, noting that bifurcation is a process, not an outcome.

After considering the factors under Rule 24(11), the lack of offers to settle, and the litigation conduct of both parties, the court awarded the applicant costs of $8,000 plus HST.

The applicant wife sought to set aside a separation agreement or its spousal support terms and requested significant disclosure.

The respondent husband cross-motioned for an order to bifurcate the application to set aside the agreement from the de novo claims for equalization and spousal support, seeking to limit disclosure until the agreement's validity was determined.

The court dismissed the husband's motion for bifurcation, finding no clear time or expense benefits, and ruled that a Miglin analysis for spousal support requires full financial disclosure regardless of the agreement's initial validity.

The court then made specific orders for disclosure.

The respondent sought costs after successfully defending a motion brought by the applicant and succeeding on a cross-motion for security for costs.

The applicant argued that no costs should be awarded due to her impecuniosity and because she acted in the best interests of the child.

The court found that the applicant had not taken a realistic or reasonable position and that her impecuniosity did not grant her unrestricted access to the courts.

The court awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $8,754.40, payable within 60 days.

This is a costs endorsement arising from a 15-day motion to change trial heard between April and August 2015.

The respondent sought full recovery of costs totalling $78,812.17, arguing he was successful on the motion and that the applicant acted unreasonably and in bad faith.

The applicant opposed the costs award, citing her limited financial means (Ontario Works recipient), the reasonableness of her conduct in making settlement offers, and the excessiveness of the respondent's counsel's time.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and presumptively entitled to costs.

After applying the factors under the Family Law Rules, the court awarded substantial costs of $68,552.00 (after deducting discretionary law clerk expenses), payable at a minimum of $500 per month, finding the applicant acted unreasonably throughout the litigation and significantly increased the respondent's costs through obstruction and refusal to settle.

The applicant (mother) was found guilty of contempt of court for breaching paragraphs 14, 15, 25, and 26 of a September 29, 2015 court order.

Specifically, she failed to advise the respondent (father) of the time and location of a blood test for the child and arranged for the child to be seen by various doctors on six occasions without notifying the father in advance.

At the sentencing hearing, the mother apologized and stated she acted thoughtlessly and out of love for her son.

The court imposed a sentence focused on deterrence and behavioral change rather than financial penalties, given the mother's limited means and the fact that custody had already been transferred to the father as a consequence of her conduct.

This is a decision on a motion to change a custody and access order dated September 29, 2015, and a contempt motion brought by the respondent father against the applicant mother for alleged breaches of that order.

The applicant also brought a cross-motion seeking various relief including appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer and a mental health assessment of the father.

The child, Dean Webster, born October 26, 2011, has special needs including bilateral club feet and moderate to severe autism spectrum disorder with language delay.

The case involves a high-conflict dispute between the parties.

The court found that the mother had engaged in a relentless campaign to discredit the father and interfere with his relationship with the child, including making unfounded allegations of physical and sexual abuse.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that the best interests of the child required a temporary change in custody to the father, with the mother's access to be supervised.

The mother was found in contempt of certain provisions of the September 29, 2015 order.

This is a motion to change a final consent order regarding custody and access of a child with autism spectrum disorder and other medical conditions.

The applicant mother sought to maintain sole custody with supervised access for the respondent father.

The respondent father sought joint custody with expanded unsupervised access.

The court found a material change in circumstances and awarded joint custody with a parallel parenting arrangement, granting the father significant decision-making authority regarding medical and educational matters, and a phased increase in parenting time.

The court found the mother had engaged in a pattern of alienating behaviour and excluding the father from the child's life, contrary to the child's best interests.

Parents brought competing motions concerning custody, residence, schooling, counselling, and access for their young child amid high parental conflict following separation.

The court found the father had engaged in conduct harmful to the child, including involving the older sibling in litigation and unilaterally terminating access for several months.

The court ordered that the child receive counselling with a qualified psychologist, authorized the mother to arrange educational and psychological assessments without the father’s consent, and required the parents to share counselling costs.

The father’s request to change the child’s primary residence and school was rejected due to the importance of preserving the status quo pending trial.

Access with the father was reinstated on a structured alternating‑weekend schedule with behavioural conditions.

The applicant sought costs of $20,615.23 following a successful motion for temporary spousal support in the amount of $1,125 per month.

The respondent conceded the applicant was the successful party but proposed costs of $5,000.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith by structuring business affairs to hide assets, failing to provide accurate financial disclosure, providing multiple conflicting income estimates, and attempting to deceive the court about his true income.

The court awarded costs on a full recovery basis for the second phase of the case and partial indemnity for the first phase, fixing total costs at $15,000 inclusive of HST, fees and disbursements, payable forthwith and enforceable as an incident of support.

A payor spouse brought a motion to vary a spousal support order following a review clause in a prior consent order.

The responding spouse sought increased spousal support and payment of alleged child support arrears, arguing that additional support was required while completing medical specialty training.

The court found the prior order contemplated four years of support to allow the responding spouse to complete training and held that the opportunity had not been pursued during that period.

While recognizing the difficulty of balancing childcare with residency demands, the court concluded it would undermine the original agreement to restart the full support period.

The court ordered limited further support equivalent to two academic years, contingent on enrollment in a specialty program, and dismissed the claim for child support arrears as contrary to an arbitration clause in the prior order.

The applicant sought temporary spousal support from the respondent following their separation after a seven-and-a-half-year cohabitation and less than one year of marriage.

The respondent had previously been ordered to pay $1,333 per month by Justice Zuker but failed to comply.

The court found the applicant entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds.

The respondent's income was imputed at $100,000 per annum based on evidence of business underreporting and non-disclosure.

The applicant's income was assessed at $5,000 for 2011 and $10,000 annually thereafter.

The court awarded temporary spousal support of $1,125 per month, ordered repayment of arrears at $475 per month, imposed a non-depletion order, and required the respondent to deposit his passport with the court as security for compliance.

The respondent's pleadings were adjourned pending compliance with financial disclosure orders.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's finding that the parties cohabited continuously for more than three years and were "spouses" under Part III of the Family Law Act.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in her factual findings and in her use of evidence from the respondent's psychiatrist.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge applied the correct test and her findings were adequately supported by the evidence, including her conclusion that the respondent's infidelities did not negate the spousal relationship.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a costs order of $45,000 made against him in a family law proceeding.

The motions judge had awarded costs on a full indemnity basis after finding the applicant acted in bad faith and unreasonably.

The Divisional Court granted an extension of time to bring the motion but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the costs award and noting the case did not raise issues of general importance.

The responding party sought costs after successfully defending an application for leave to appeal.

The moving party argued for divided success and that costs should be in the cause.

The court rejected these arguments, emphasizing the need for immediate costs sanctions to encourage negotiated resolutions in high-conflict litigation.

The court awarded the responding party $3,500 in fees plus GST and disbursements.

The appellant appealed an order relating to directions for the sale of the matrimonial home and exclusive possession.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding that the issue regarding the matrimonial home was moot as the home had already been sold.

The court further held that the remaining aspects of the order were interlocutory, meaning any appeal would lie to the Divisional Court with leave.