Andrea Himel

This was a costs ruling arising from a family law motion to change concerning parenting time, school choice, and decision-making for a young child.

Although the substantive dispute settled on consent shortly before trial, the court found the final resolution substantially favoured the applicant's litigation positions and that the respondent had taken unreasonable positions and unreasonably declined settlement offers.

Applying rr. 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court balanced success, proportionality, settlement incentives, litigation conduct, and the respondent's limited financial means.

Partial indemnity costs of $50,000 inclusive of HST were awarded, payable in monthly instalments of $250.

The parties separated after a 27-year marriage characterized by traditional roles, with the wife acting as a homemaker and the husband as the sole financial provider.

Following a trial, the court granted a divorce and resolved outstanding property and spousal support claims.

The court ordered the equalization of net family property, the division of the husband's pension at source, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court imputed income to both parties and awarded the wife a lump sum spousal support payment of $29,500 to be paid from the husband's share of the net proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant father brought a motion to expand his parenting time with his three children from supervised access to unsupervised and overnight parenting time.

The respondent mother opposed, citing historical allegations of family violence and the father's criminal charges, which were resolved by a peace bond.

The court found that supervised access had been inappropriately used as a long-term remedy and that the mother's refusal to consent to a reasonable schedule was not protective gatekeeping but rather an inappropriate delay of normalized parenting time.

The court ordered a step-up parenting plan transitioning to unsupervised overnight parenting time and awarded costs to the father.

The applicant in a family law proceeding sought a certificate of pending litigation against real property after alleging that the respondent spouse transferred his interest to his parents for nominal consideration to defeat support and related financial claims.

Applying the fraudulent conveyance certificate of pending litigation framework, the court found a high probability of success on the underlying support litigation, sufficient evidence that the impugned transfer was intended to hinder enforcement, and a balance of convenience favouring preservation of the property’s equity.

The court relied on the spouse’s support arrears, lack of other meaningful assets, inconsistent evidence concerning alleged parental debts, and multiple badges of fraud.

The motion was granted and the applicant received $6,000 in costs.

The applicant mother brought a motion to relocate with the parties' two children from Richmond Hill to St. Catharines.

The parties had a shared parenting arrangement.

The mother unilaterally moved to St. Catharines during the COVID-19 pandemic when schools were virtual.

The court applied the relocation provisions of the Divorce Act and found that the mother failed to meet her burden of proving the move was in the children's best interests, noting the significant impact the distance would have on the children and the father's parenting time.

The motion was dismissed, and the mother was ordered to return to within a 30-minute commute of the father's residence to maintain the shared parenting schedule.

The respondent mother brought a motion for the child to primarily reside with her and for the applicant father's parenting time to be conditional on drug and alcohol testing.

The father requested a shared parenting schedule and sole decision-making, denying any substance abuse issues.

The court found the father's denial of substance abuse issues not credible and noted his recent withholding of the child.

The court ordered that the child primarily reside with the mother, with the father's parenting time conditional on negative drug and alcohol tests, and granted the mother final decision-making authority.

Following a lengthy high-conflict family trial, the court resolved property, support, and post-separation adjustment claims arising from the breakdown of a long marriage involving a failed family business and an adult dependent child with disabilities.

The court found both parties jointly responsible for the destruction of the business and much of the financial ruin, but held that the respondent had a 50% trust interest in the second matrimonial home because the parties operated as a joint family venture and the delayed sale produced a substantial post-separation increase in value.

The court rejected an unequal division of net family property, imputed annual incomes of $15,000 and $65,000, ordered retroactive and ongoing table child support but no section 7 contribution, and awarded transitional lump sum spousal support.

The respondent was also made solely liable for the costs of the consumer proposal and related bankruptcy steps caused by his breach of prior settlement terms.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that a 4.5-year-old child with autism spectrum disorder be placed in extended society care, with reduced access for the parents.

The parents opposed the motion, seeking to have the child placed in their care or to adjourn for updated parenting capacity assessments.

The court applied the test for summary judgment in child protection proceedings and found that there were genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the father's parenting plan and both parents' access.

The court noted that the existing parenting capacity assessments were outdated and that the COVID-19 pandemic had impacted the parents' ability to progress.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed and the matter was ordered to proceed to trial.

Following a re-hearing of a family law trial, the court determined the issue of costs.

The self-represented respondent was substantially successful on the property issues and somewhat successful on support issues.

The court found the applicant acted in bad faith by adopting a 'catch-me-if-you-can' approach to financial disclosure and pursuing meritless trust claims.

The respondent was awarded costs of $65,000, with his time as a self-represented litigant valued at $100 per hour.

The applicant father brought a 14B motion to re-open a costs decision, arguing his former counsel failed to include certain settlement offers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the omitted offers would not have altered the costs determination.

Noting the father's child support arrears and the excessive litigation history, the court awarded full indemnity costs to the respondent mother and ordered that the father may not seek further relief until he complies with all support and costs orders.

Following the vacating of the parties' motions for violating page limitations, the applicant requested an urgent teleconference regarding his spousal support motion.

The court expressed frustration with the parties' litigious conduct and the broader culture of unreasonableness and incivility in family court.

The court scheduled the applicant's spousal support motion and directed the respondent to file a 14B motion for leave to proceed with her motion.

The parties separated after a 16-year marriage.

The wife sought a resulting trust interest or unequal division of the husband's investment portfolio, which had grown significantly post-separation.

The court dismissed the trust and unequal division claims, finding the equalization of net family property regime applied.

Both parties were found to be intentionally under-employed, and incomes were imputed to both for support purposes.

The husband was ordered to pay an equalization payment, retroactive child support, and retroactive and ongoing spousal support.

The mother brought a motion to change a shared parenting order to sole custody and primary residence, which was ultimately resolved on consent after significant litigation.

The mother sought full recovery costs of $105,842.66, arguing the father's unreasonable behaviour drove up costs.

The father argued each party should bear their own costs as the matter settled on consent.

The court found the mother was the successful party and the father's entrenched position was unreasonable, but held the mother's claimed costs were disproportionate.

The court awarded the mother costs of $35,000.

The Children and Family Services for York Region brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order finding two children in need of protection and placing them in extended society care with no access to the parents.

The parents opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children or, alternatively, access.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the parents' history of unaddressed mental health issues, lack of parenting skills, and failure to work with the Society.

The court granted the summary judgment, finding the children in need of protection and ordering extended society care with no access to the parents, but allowing sibling access.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking police enforcement under s. 36(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act to locate, apprehend, and deliver the children for access, as well as make-up time for missed visits.

The applicant mother had withheld access, alleging the father failed to comply with Covid-19 protocols and restrictions on third-party contact from a previous order.

The court dismissed the request for police enforcement, finding it an exceptional remedy not warranted in this high-conflict case where the father had shown poor judgment in complying with the spirit of the previous order.

However, the court granted make-up access to allow the father to reconnect with the children and normalize the parenting schedule.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion to suspend the applicant father's mid-week parenting time or, alternatively, to order him to take their three-year-old child to daycare during his parenting time.

The mother required the child to attend daycare full-time to maintain his spot and subsidy, which she needed in order to work.

The father objected to daycare attendance during his time, preferring the child stay home with his stepmother and siblings.

The court found it was in the child's best interests to attend daycare full-time, noting the benefits of the program and the disruption of part-time attendance, but allowed either parent to pick up the child before or after nap time.

The parties brought urgent motions regarding their four-year-old child's school attendance and parenting schedule during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The mother sought an order for in-person attendance at a private school, while the father sought homeschooling or online learning, citing health risks.

The court ordered in-person attendance, finding no medical evidence of an unacceptable risk of harm to the child or the father.

The court also rejected the father's request for an equal time-sharing arrangement due to the high conflict between the parties, but ordered a graduated increase in his parenting time, including overnights.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion requesting the respondent father submit to drug testing and that his access be suspended pending a negative result, citing erratic behaviour and allegations of cocaine use.

The father denied the allegations and provided a rapid drug screen, which the mother argued was insufficient.

The court ordered the father to undergo a panel urine and hair follicle test through a certified facility to ensure reliability.

The court also ordered that the father's access continue but be strictly supervised pending negative test results, finding the concerns about drug use constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Applicant (Mother) brought a 14B motion seeking an order to travel with the children to Jamaica.

The Respondent (Father) failed to respond to the motion despite being served.

The court granted the Mother permission to travel with the children, contingent on her obtaining travel medical/health insurance for the children and complying with Canada's quarantine requirements upon their return.

The Father's consent to travel was dispensed with.