Andrea S. Clarke

Following a family law trial, the court issued supplementary reasons to determine the exact quantum of retroactive spousal support, tax implications, and costs.

The court ordered the applicant husband to pay $86,108 in retroactive spousal support and a $36,433 catch-up payment, with no tax deductions applied to the lump sums, directing the parties to seek reassessment from the CRA.

The respondent wife was deemed the successful party at trial, having prevailed on the duration and quantum of support, and was awarded $30,000 in costs.

The moving party father brought a motion for an interim order expanding his parenting time to a week-about shared parenting schedule.

The responding party mother opposed the motion, arguing there was no material change in circumstances and that the change would be too disruptive for the child.

The court found that the previous interim order did not establish a status quo that required a material change in circumstances to vary.

Applying the maximum contact principle under the Divorce Act and Children's Law Reform Act, the court concluded it was in the child's best interests to expand parenting time, as there were no safety concerns and the father had a flexible work schedule and childcare plan.

The motion was granted.

The applicant and respondent disputed the proper venue for their family law proceeding concerning parenting time, specifically whether it should be Bruce County (where children formerly lived) or Simcoe County (where they now live).

The court applied Rule 5(1)(b) of the Family Law Rules and s. 22(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, which define "habitual residence." The court found that the applicant had impliedly consented to the children's move to Simcoe County, making Simcoe County their habitual residence.

Consequently, Barrie was determined to be the correct courthouse for the proceeding.

The trial addressed spousal support, retroactive spousal support, pension division, and occupation rent following a 38-year conventional marriage.

The court awarded the Wife indefinite spousal support at the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) mid-range, subject to review upon the Husband's retirement, and a "catch up" amount for past support.

Retroactive spousal support was ordered from fall 2017, based on effective notice and the Wife's emotional means.

The Husband's pension was ordered to be divided as of the date of separation, and his claim for occupation rent was dismissed due to his failure to pay spousal support and contribution to the delay in selling the matrimonial home.

Following the applicant's substantial success on the merits, the court addressed the issue of costs.

Despite the respondent seeking costs against the applicant, the court awarded costs to the applicant based on her success.

The respondent was ordered to pay $3,200 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes within 60 days.

The Applicant sought interim custody, interim child support, retroactive child support, and enforcement of a prior disclosure order.

The Respondent sought interim access.

The court granted interim custody to the Applicant and ordered the Respondent to pay interim child support based on an imputed annual income of $40,000, declining retroactive support at this stage due to the interim nature of the order and the state of the record.

The Respondent was granted supervised daytime access on alternate weekends, with overnight access denied due to the children's best interests and the unsuitability of the Respondent's living arrangements.

The court also ordered the Respondent to comply with the outstanding disclosure order within 15 days, failing which the Applicant could seek further relief.

Costs submissions were invited.

This is a costs decision following urgent COVID-19 motions concerning parenting arrangements for twin children.

The applicant sought to enforce an existing parenting order and obtain make-up access time, while the respondent sought to suspend the applicant's access due to pandemic concerns.

The court found in favour of the applicant on the substantive motion.

In this costs endorsement, the court awarded costs to the successful party, finding that the respondent acted unreasonably by unilaterally terminating access without proper justification, making unfounded allegations, and demonstrating a pattern of non-compliance with court orders.

The court fixed costs at $5,000 inclusive of HST, representing a middle ground between the claimed amounts, to sanction the respondent's conduct while maintaining proportionality.

Two urgent COVID-19 access motions were brought in an ongoing high-conflict custody and access proceeding.

The father sought enforcement of court-ordered access and makeup time after the mother unilaterally suspended access on March 27, 2020, citing COVID-19 concerns.

The mother sought to suspend all in-person access pending further court order, offering only remote contact.

The court found the father's motion met the urgency threshold and determined that the mother failed to provide specific evidence that the father's actions were inconsistent with COVID-19 protocols.

The court ordered that the existing access arrangement continue with modifications, suspending only the midweek Wednesday access and granting makeup access to compensate for the unjustified denial.

This decision addresses the costs of a six-day family law trial where the applicant, Michelle Grasso, was successful against the respondent, Rishi Bhatt, but unsuccessful against the Third Party Respondent, Dr. Gunvantrai Bhatt.

Dr. Bhatt was partially successful in his counter-claims against Ms. Grasso.

Dr. Bhatt sought costs against Ms. Grasso, arguing entitlement as the successful party and for full indemnity costs after a rejected settlement offer.

Ms. Grasso opposed, citing financial hardship and partial success against Rishi Bhatt.

The court, exercising judicial discretion, considered the parties' disparate financial positions, Ms. Grasso's unmeritorious claim against Dr. Bhatt, and Dr. Bhatt's unreasonable conduct during trial.

The court awarded Dr. Bhatt $41,716 in costs against Ms. Grasso, reducing the amount due to Dr. Bhatt's conduct and some unreasonable claims, and granted Ms. Grasso one year to make the full payment.

The applicant sought sole custody, child support, a restraining order, and a declaration of a beneficial interest in the family residence owned by her father-in-law (the third party respondent).

The respondent father did not participate in the trial.

The court granted the applicant sole custody, supervised access for the respondent, a restraining order, and retroactive and prospective child support based on an imputed income.

However, the court dismissed the applicant's trust and proprietary estoppel claims regarding the family residence, finding no credible evidence of financial contribution or a clear promise to transfer title.

The applicant was ordered to vacate the property and pay the third party respondent $13,640 in damages for trespass for unpaid utilities.

A costs decision in a family law matter concerning a motion to prevent relocation.

The father sought to prevent the mother from relocating with their child to Alberta.

The mother withdrew her relocation request after receiving a Voice of the Child Report.

The parties disagreed on costs allocation.

The court found that neither party acted unreasonably and declined to award costs to either party, applying principles that discourage cost awards in settlement situations and emphasizing the importance of the issues involved.

This is a costs endorsement following motions to change child support and custody arrangements between former partners.

The applicant sought retroactive child support adjustment back to 2003 and prospective support, while the respondent sought termination of his child support obligation and support from the applicant.

The court found the respondent was the more successful party, having achieved termination of his support obligation effective March 1, 2017, and obtaining support from the applicant.

The applicant was partially successful in obtaining a three-year retroactive adjustment (2014-2017) and some section 7 expense contributions, but her 15-year retroactive claim was rejected.

The court awarded costs to the respondent.

The father brought a motion seeking to enforce the terms of a temporary order regarding unsupervised access and to determine reasonable section 7 expenses for the child's special needs.

The mother opposed the transition to unsupervised access and sought confirmation of various extraordinary expenses including speech therapy, occupational therapy, tutoring, after-school care, and summer camps.

The court determined which expenses were reasonable and necessary in relation to the child's best interests and the parties' means, fixed a monthly contribution amount for section 7 expenses, and ordered the commencement of unsupervised access.

Two motions to change were brought regarding child support and section 7 expenses for an adult child (age 18) who had relocated from the mother's residence to the father's residence.

The father sought termination of his child support obligation and retroactive child support from the mother.

The mother sought ongoing child support, retroactive adjustment of child support based on undisclosed income increases, and retroactive section 7 expenses.

The court found the child was no longer entitled to ongoing support as she was not pursuing post-secondary education.

The court ordered retroactive child support adjustment limited to 2014-2017 based on the three-year principle, awarded partial section 7 expenses (child care and medical/orthodontic costs), and dismissed claims for private school fees and extracurricular activities.

Net arrears were fixed at $7,686.50 payable by the father to the mother.

The applicant brought a motion to find the respondent in contempt for failing to comply with previous court orders requiring financial disclosure in the context of the respondent's motion to change child support.

The court found that the respondent deliberately breached the disclosure orders, causing unnecessary delay and expense.

Rather than striking the respondent's pleadings, the court ordered him to pay a penalty of $24,900, representing $100 per day of non-compliance, failing which the applicant could return her motion to strike his pleadings.

The respondent, Bissonnette, brought a motion to change a final order to rescind child support arrears.

The court conducted a trial of the issue, considering whether denial of access, delay in enforcement, misrepresentation of arrears, or the child no longer being dependent should preclude enforcement.

The court found no deliberate denial of access by the applicant, no acquiescence in non-payment, and that Bissonnette's delay in seeking relief was unreasonable.

The court declined to preclude enforcement of arrears, deferring the issue of the child's lack of need and hardship to the paying party for a future trial or settlement.

During a trial management conference in an ongoing family law proceeding, the parties participated in a teleconference and provided updates regarding the schooling, services, and medical arrangements for their children following a proposed relocation to Simcoe County.

On consent, the court varied an earlier custody order to establish a revised parenting schedule under which the children would reside with the father during weekdays and spend designated weekends with the mother.

The order also addressed school enrollment, transportation arrangements, medical treatment compliance, and counselling requirements for the parties.

The children were deemed to continue primarily residing with the mother for purposes including child tax benefits, and existing child support obligations remained in place.

The custody and access arrangement was ordered to be reviewed at the next resumption of the trial management conference.

Following the breakdown of a marriage, the applicant sought sole custody of three children and child support from the respondent, while the respondent sought continuation of a joint custody arrangement previously ordered by consent.

The court considered the parties’ inability to communicate, the respondent’s inconsistent exercise of parenting time, and the applicant’s role as the primary caregiver, including responsibility for a child with Type 1 diabetes.

Applying the best interests of the children and the principles governing joint custody, the court held that joint custody was inappropriate where the parents lacked effective communication and cooperation.

The court granted the applicant sole custody with structured access to the respondent.

The court declined to impute income to the respondent for child support under s. 19(1)(a) of the Child Support Guidelines due to credible evidence of disability and financial hardship, and expunged arrears while granting leave to renew the support claim if circumstances changed.