Alisa P. Williams

This decision concerns the costs award following a 54-day family law trial.

The applicant, J.M.M., sought costs after being successful on all major issues, including parenting, child support, spousal support, and property.

The court awarded $150,000 in costs (inclusive of disbursements and HST), finding this amount fair and proportionate given the applicant’s success, the respondent’s unreasonable litigation conduct, and the respondent’s significant mental health and financial challenges.

The court structured payment terms to reflect the respondent’s limited means and designated a portion of the award as support, enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

This decision resolves a high-conflict family law dispute involving divorce, parenting, child support, spousal support, and property division.

The court grants the father sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the child, C.M.M., with the mother’s parenting time to be supervised due to longstanding concerns about her mental health and repeated unsubstantiated abuse allegations.

The mother is ordered to undergo psychiatric and psychological assessments, and her parenting time may be reviewed after December 1, 2026.

The court orders the mother to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, an equalization payment, and reimbursement for funds received from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The father is found to have fully satisfied his spousal support obligations.

The decision includes detailed analysis of the parties’ credibility, financial circumstances, and the best interests of the child.

This decision addresses an interim parenting and school placement dispute following a parent's unilateral relocation with children in breach of a separation agreement.

The court finds the mother acted unilaterally and without candor, and orders the children to remain at their original school, with a detailed interim parenting schedule and joint decision-making (with final authority to the father if consensus cannot be reached).

The decision emphasizes the primacy of the children's best interests, the importance of stability, and the need for full disclosure and procedural fairness in family law proceedings.

This is a triage endorsement for an urgent motion in a family law matter.

The applicant mother sought the return of her two children, alleging the respondent father refused to return them after a visit, disrupting a long-standing parenting status quo.

The court made a preliminary finding that the issues were potentially urgent and set a schedule for the filing of materials, emphasizing the need for evidence from both parents.

The court also provided guidance on parenting principles, including reluctance to disrupt status quo, maximum contact, and disapproval of unilateral action.

The respondent sought leave to proceed with an urgent motion regarding access to the two younger children, alleging the applicant withheld access due to COVID-19 concerns.

The court, acting as a triage justice, determined the matter was presumptively urgent as it involved the alleged wrongful retention of children contrary to a final order.

The motion was allowed to proceed on the issue of access for the two younger children, and timelines for submissions were set.

The mother (A.H.) brought a motion for temporary care of her child (D.), seeking placement with her under supervision or expanded access.

The Children's Aid Society of Hamilton (CAS) opposed, seeking continued care and a finding that the child was not First Nations, Inuk, or Métis.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer supported the mother.

The court found no reasonable grounds to believe the child would suffer harm if returned to the mother under supervision.

Applying the two-part test under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the court ordered the child's return to the mother's care via an eight-week transitional schedule with specific supervision terms.

The finding regarding the child's Indigenous status was unopposed and granted.

Following a trial regarding spousal support where success was divided, the parties submitted written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought substantial and full indemnity costs based on an offer to settle, while the applicant argued each party should bear their own costs.

The court found the respondent's offer to settle was ambiguous and that she had not obtained a more favourable result.

Noting the respondent's unreasonable behaviour regarding financial disclosure and the divided success at trial, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The applicant sought to terminate spousal support due to his impending retirement, while the respondent cross-moved for retroactive and increased spousal support.

The court found a material change in circumstances, allowing for a variation of the separation agreement.

Retroactive spousal support from 2015 was denied due to the respondent's delay in seeking variation and non-disclosure of cohabitation.

However, retroactive support was granted from January 1, 2018.

The court recognized the respondent's economic disadvantage from the marriage, warranting compensatory support, and applied the "double dipping" exception from Boston v. Boston.

The applicant was ordered to pay $1700 per month in spousal support from January 1, 2018, until December 31, 2022, based on his income of $95,000.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs due to divided success.

The parties, who share joint custody and equal parenting time, brought a motion to determine which school their two children should attend after missing the first nine days of the school year due to an impasse.

The mother proposed a school near her home, while the father proposed one near his.

The court found both proposals evenly matched but selected the mother's proposed school because the father had better transportation options to facilitate the children's attendance on his parenting days.

No costs were awarded as both parties behaved unreasonably in delaying the decision.

This is a costs endorsement following an eight-day trial primarily concerning custody and access in a mobility context.

The Respondent was successful at trial, having met or exceeded her Offer to Settle, which presumptively entitled her to costs.

The Respondent sought full recovery costs of $35,206.50.

The Applicant argued for no costs or nominal costs, citing the inherent difficulty of mobility cases and his precarious financial circumstances.

The Court found the Respondent's conduct was not unreasonable and that success was not divided.

However, considering the unique challenges of mobility disputes, the Applicant's reasonable pursuit of the status quo, and his precarious financial situation, the Court exercised its discretion under Rule 24(11)(f) to mitigate the costs award.

The parties separated and initially shared parenting of their two children in Hamilton.

The mother subsequently moved to Brampton and sought sole custody and primary residence, while the father sought joint custody and to maintain the shared parenting schedule in Hamilton.

The court found that the mother had always been the primary caregiver and that the father required significant third-party assistance to manage his parenting time.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act and the relocation principles from Gordon v. Goertz, the court awarded sole custody and primary residence to the mother in Brampton, with the father having parenting time three weekends out of four and mid-week visits.

Child support was also ordered.

Annette Walters sought full recovery costs against Derek Walters following a settlement of their family law matter.

The court found Derek's conduct, including unproven allegations of fraud, relentless pursuit of irrelevant disclosure, and withdrawal of an unequal division claim shortly before trial, constituted bad faith.

Annette's offers were close to the final settlement, while Derek's offers did not trigger costs consequences.

The court awarded Annette full recovery costs, finding Derek's actions unnecessarily prolonged and complicated the litigation.

Following a 28‑year unmarried relationship with two children, the parties litigated claims relating to child support, spousal support, and alleged unjust enrichment tied to a family‑owned food truck business.

The respondent asserted entitlement to an ownership interest or compensation for unpaid labour, alleging the parties jointly operated a profitable business generating undeclared income.

The court rejected the unjust enrichment claim, finding the applicant alone purchased the business from her father and that the respondent’s contributions did not enrich the applicant or increase the business’s value.

However, the court accepted evidence that the applicant understated income and imputed annual income of $100,000 for support purposes.

Orders were made for guideline child support, certain section 7 expenses, and a lump‑sum spousal support payment to assist the respondent’s transition to a reduced standard of living.

The respondent father brought a motion to change the child support provisions of a separation agreement after losing his long‑term employment due to a plant closure and pursuing retraining as a plumber.

The applicant mother sought to have income imputed at the father’s former level, arguing that his decision to undertake a plumbing apprenticeship and accept severance instead of recall rights reflected unreasonable employment choices.

The court applied the principles governing imputation of income under s. 19 of the Child Support Guidelines and the test from Drygala v. Pauli.

The court found the job loss was involuntary, the retraining plan was reasonable in the circumstances, and the father had acted in good faith while diligently seeking employment.

Income was therefore not imputed; support was recalculated based on the father’s reduced income and adjusted section 7 expense contributions were ordered.

The respondent brought a motion seeking a declaration that a family law application was not validly issued, a change of venue, and leave to file an answer.

The court held that any irregularities in the issuance of the application were merely technical and did not invalidate the proceeding.

The request for a change of venue was denied due to the respondent's failure to comply with a prior court order requiring financial disclosure.

Leave to file an answer was not granted immediately; instead, the court imposed a condition that the respondent first comply with the disclosure order within 30 days, failing which a further motion would proceed to determine whether leave should be granted.