Alice Weatherston

The parties brought temporary motions concerning child support, spousal support, sale of the matrimonial home and a motor vehicle, and financial disclosure.

The court ordered the respondent to provide extensive financial disclosure, finding his previous behaviour unreasonable.

It ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home with specific terms, including a $100,000 retention from the respondent's share for equalization.

The court rejected the respondent's request to impute income to the applicant and ordered the respondent to pay $1,299 monthly child support and $4,000 monthly spousal support, with a portion of the spousal support being a third-party payment for housing expenses until the home's sale.

The respondent was also ordered to maintain life insurance to secure support.

The applicant father brought a motion for contempt and summary judgment against the respondent mother for failing to provide financial disclosure and to resolve child support and section 7 expenses.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the mother's failure to comply was not intentional but rather a result of severe mental health issues.

The court granted partial summary judgment, fixing the section 7 expenses and child support overpayment, but ordered a mini-trial to determine the imputation of the mother's income and life insurance designation, noting the need to accommodate the self-represented mother's procedural deficiencies.

The Superior Court of Justice addressed a motion and cross-motion concerning interim child and spousal support.

The respondent mother sought support, while the applicant father sought income imputation for the mother, specific income determination for himself (including employment expense deductions), and proportional sharing of daycare costs.

The court rejected the father's proposed higher income imputation for the mother, instead imputing a lower part-time income effective several months later, acknowledging her medical leave.

The court included a one-time RSU payment in the father's income for support purposes and allowed his employment expense deductions and ongoing support payments for an older child, but denied anticipated post-secondary expenses for that child.

Interim child and spousal support were ordered, with retroactive application and a future adjustment based on the mother's imputed income, aiming for roughly equal net disposable income.

This costs decision followed a five-day trial concerning unjust enrichment, joint family venture, and unpaid monies.

The applicant, Danielle Belair, sought over $100,000, while the respondent, Marcel Bourgon, pursued over $76,000.

The trial judge awarded Ms. Belair a nominal amount of $818.64 and dismissed all other claims.

Considering the parties' conduct and Mr. Bourgon's reasonable settlement offers, which were significantly better than the trial outcome for Ms. Belair, the court fixed costs at $75,673.85, payable by Ms. Belair to Mr. Bourgon.

The parties separated after a five-year common law relationship.

The applicant sought over $100,000 for unjust enrichment and a joint family venture, claiming she significantly contributed to the respondent's dog grooming and breeding business.

The respondent counterclaimed for unpaid rent and repair costs.

The court dismissed both primary claims, finding the applicant exaggerated her involvement in the business and the respondent's invoices had already been paid.

The court awarded the applicant $818.64 for her share of jointly owned dogs and puppies, and granted the respondent sole ownership of the dogs.

Following a family law trial where the applicant was largely successful on issues of custody and child support, the applicant sought costs of $78,656.48 on a full recovery basis.

The court found the respondent engaged in unreasonable conduct by failing to provide disclosure, failing to prepare for trial, and ignoring multiple reasonable offers to settle made by the applicant.

The court fixed costs at $50,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Furthermore, the court ordered that the entire costs award be enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office as child support pursuant to section 1(1)(g) of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996.

This trial addressed custody and access for two children, Mathieu and Alexandre, along with retroactive and prospective table child support, section 7 expenses, extended health coverage, security for child support, and costs.

The applicant sought sole custody, emphasizing her role as the primary caregiver and the respondent's failure to administer medication for their special needs child.

The respondent alleged parental alienation and sought sole custody or joint custody.

The court granted sole custody and primary residence to the applicant, finding the respondent's conduct and lack of insight into the children's needs detrimental.

The court also imputed income to the respondent due to intentional under-employment and ordered child support and arrears, along with contributions to daycare and hockey expenses.

This endorsement addresses costs following a motion to change child support arrears, where the court previously found the applicant owed $29,148.43.

The respondent sought costs on a full indemnity basis, citing two offers to settle that were more favourable to the applicant than the final outcome.

The applicant, who was self-represented and disorganized, did not accept these offers.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and entitled to costs, particularly under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules due to her unaccepted, more favourable offer.

The court awarded the respondent $20,946.46 in costs, payable from sale proceeds and enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to correct a mistake in a previous order fixing child support arrears.

The court had previously interpreted a Family Responsibility Office statement as indicating a zero balance, but new evidence clarified that the entry was an adjustment for a notice of withdrawal, not a payment.

The court corrected the mistake and varied the order to fix the arrears at $29,148.43.

The parties sought costs for a motion where the applicant sought a change in exchange time for their daughter and the respondent sought leave to abridge timelines for an expert report and an increase in child support.

The court found that success on the motion was divided, as the respondent was unreasonable on the exchange time issue but the applicant should have recognized an increase in child support was inevitable.

The court declined to make an order for costs in favour of either party.

Following a family law trial concerning spousal support and equalization of net family property, the court addressed costs.

The parties disputed entitlement to costs and relied on multiple offers to settle, some of which were made on the eve of trial and therefore fell outside the cost consequences under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that although success was divided, the respondent spouse was overall more successful on the most contentious issues, including the quantum of spousal support.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded, but full or substantial indemnity costs were declined given the complexity of the issues and partial success of the other party.

The court also declined to award pre‑judgment interest on the equalization payment.

The applicant brought an urgent ex parte motion seeking exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and a restraining order against the respondent spouse.

The motion was based on affidavit evidence alleging escalating verbal threats, physical violence, and threats to destroy the home following the breakdown of the relationship.

Applying s. 24 and s. 46(1) of the Family Law Act, the court considered the best interests of the children, the parties’ financial circumstances, the parties’ domestic contract regarding the property, availability of alternative accommodation, and allegations of violence.

The court found there was evidence of a significant risk of harm if the parties remained in the same residence and granted interim interim exclusive possession and a restraining order pending a full hearing with notice.

Following a 25‑year marriage, the parties disputed spousal support quantum, child support for an adult child, ownership of a Québec cottage property, and equalization of net family property.

The court determined the separation and valuation date and addressed spousal support using the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines in circumstances where the payor’s income exceeded $350,000.

Income was imputed to the recipient spouse due to limited job‑search efforts, and spousal support was fixed with a future review.

The court found unjust enrichment principles potentially supported a proprietary claim by the respondent in the cottage property but held that Ontario lacked jurisdiction to determine title to land in Québec.

A temporary stay of the equalization calculation was ordered pending resolution of the Québec ownership proceeding.