Anna L. Towlson

The Society brought a protection application regarding two children after discovering their mother's home in a state of severe disarray with accessible drugs and paraphernalia.

The court found the children in need of protection under s. 74(2)(b)(i) of the CYFSA due to the mother's opioid use disorder and the hazardous state of the home.

The court ordered the children placed in the father's care for four months subject to Society supervision.

Recognizing the mother's recent progress in engaging with relapse prevention services, the court ordered a schedule of gradually increasing, unsupervised access for the mother, culminating in equal shared parenting time.

This is a costs endorsement following an uncontested family law trial conducted in two phases.

The applicant sought costs recovery for legal fees and disbursements incurred over approximately 24 months, from the preparation of the application through to the final determination of property issues and implementation of orders.

The court determined the scope of recoverable costs and applied principles from established case law regarding costs awards in uncontested trials, considering reasonableness, proportionality, and the conduct of the parties.

This costs decision follows a lengthy family law trial between Nathan Zane Nugent and Melanie Rebecca Nugent, addressing retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, property division, and related issues.

The court found the wife was entirely successful and awarded her $200,000 in costs, citing the husband’s repeated non-compliance with court orders, failure to provide disclosure, and unreasonable conduct throughout the proceedings.

The court reviewed the legislative and case law framework for costs, the role of offers to settle, and the proportionality and reasonableness of the costs sought.

The order is enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

This decision is a partial judgment from a multi-day family law trial concerning retroactive and prospective child and spousal support, and property division.

The court addressed the payor's income for support purposes, including the issue of "double-dipping" from a military pension and the imputation of income from a potential new employment.

The court found that the recipient had a strong compensatory claim for spousal support and that an exception to the "double-dipping" rule applied due to her continuing economic hardship.

The court imputed income to the payor based on an unaccepted job offer, finding the reasons for non-acceptance disingenuous.

The decision also finalized the equalization payment and set out ongoing support obligations.

The Applicant Mother sought to change a Final Order regarding joint decision-making and equally shared parenting of three children, citing a material change in circumstances due to the Respondent Father's non-compliance with court orders, communication issues, and family violence.

The Father sought a return to equally shared parenting.

The court found a material change in circumstances, granted Mother final decision-making authority, and significantly reduced Father's parenting time to alternate Saturdays (non-overnight) and specified holiday time.

Despite imputing income to the Father, no child support was ordered payable by him due to undue hardship based on the Household Standards of Living test.

The parties separated after a 13-year marriage during which the family relocated multiple times for the applicant's military career.

The respondent sacrificed her career and education to support the applicant and care for their children.

Following separation, the applicant's income fluctuated but generally increased, while the respondent relied on social assistance and suffered from mental health issues exacerbated by the applicant's conduct.

The court found the respondent had a strong compensatory claim for spousal support and was entitled to share in the applicant's post-separation income increases.

The court ordered the applicant to pay $215,788 in retroactive spousal support (after crediting a child support overpayment) and $8,449 in retroactive s. 7 expenses, including private school tuition.

The court declined to impute income to the respondent retroactively but imputed minimum wage commencing in 2024.

The mother (S.M.) brought a motion seeking access to and use of youth criminal justice records and Children's Aid Society (CAS) records concerning her child in ongoing child protection proceedings.

The court clarified that CAS records containing youth criminal involvement information are not Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) records and can be disclosed without a youth court order.

It also determined which specific YCJA records were relevant and necessary for use in the child protection proceedings, applying the Wagg and Bailey tests, emphasizing the paramount purpose of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) to promote the best interests of children and the need for fulsome information before the court.

This endorsement addresses a motion by the Applicant to re-open a family law trial to introduce fresh evidence regarding the Respondent's alleged property ownership in Bangladesh, and a determination of costs for the original trial.

The court dismissed the motion to re-open, finding it was brought too late and the proposed evidence was not diligently adduced, which would prejudice the Respondent and necessitate re-doing the trial.

Despite dismissing the motion, the court awarded the Applicant $50,000 in costs, citing the Respondent's litigation misconduct during the trial, including presenting unreliable and potentially fraudulent evidence.

This is a costs endorsement following a parenting and grandparent contact trial.

The respondent, Brittney Trovao, was successful at trial and sought costs against the applicants, Nemanja Grujicic and Georgina Grujicic.

The court found Georgina Grujicic to be the driving force behind the litigation and ordered her to pay $50,000.00 in costs to Brittney Trovao, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The court considered the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, Brittney's success, Georgina's unreasonable conduct (though not bad faith), and Georgina's ability to pay, allowing for installment payments.

No costs were ordered against Nemanja Grujicic.

This family law trial addressed multiple issues arising from a divorce, including the validity of a foreign divorce, ownership of foreign property, equalization of net family property (NFP), adjustments to NFP for asset depletion, child and spousal support arrears, and claims for occupation rent and post-separation adjustments for home expenses.

The court found the foreign divorce invalid due to lack of real and substantial connection to Bangladesh, and dismissed claims regarding foreign property due to unreliable and potentially fraudulent evidence from both parties.

The court adjusted NFP by adding back assets intentionally depleted by the respondent prior to separation.

Child and spousal support arrears were fixed, and ongoing spousal support was ordered.

The respondent's claims for occupation rent and post-separation adjustments for home expenses were dismissed.

The applicant father and paternal grandmother sought parenting time and grandparent contact with a six-year-old child.

The respondent mother, who had sole decision-making and residency, consented to the father's parenting time but had concerns about the grandmother's highly conflictual behaviour.

The court ordered bi-weekly parenting time for the father with a third party present.

Applying the test for grandparent contact, the court deferred to the mother's decisions, granting the grandmother limited supervised contact on the terms proposed by the mother, subject to the mother's sole discretion to suspend contact.

The father was also ordered to pay ongoing and retroactive child support on consent.

The parties participated in a binding judicial dispute resolution (JDR) process to resolve outstanding parenting issues regarding their eight-year-old child.

The JDR process, a pilot program in the Kitchener Unified Family Court, allowed the parties to settle most issues on consent.

The court adjudicated the remaining narrow issues, including the financial implications of major decision-making, exchange locations, and attendance at extra-curricular activities, focusing on minimizing the child's exposure to conflict.

The respondent brought a motion alleging a binding settlement for the purchase of the applicant's interest in their jointly owned home, based on pre-litigation counsel correspondence.

The court examined whether such correspondence could constitute a domestic contract under s. 55(1) of the Family Law Act.

The court concluded that pre-litigation correspondence cannot form a binding domestic contract due to the strict statutory requirements of writing, signatures, and witnessing, and the distinction between pre-litigation negotiation and active litigation settlements.

The motion was dismissed, and the court found as a fact the value of the applicant's equity interest in the property at separation.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's orders regarding child support, arrears, and parenting time.

The parties had a separation agreement, but the mother sought to enforce its terms after a child changed residence to live with her full-time.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's calculation of child support and arrears, finding no error in applying the Guidelines.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred by issuing a final order for parenting time when he had indicated during the hearing it would be an interim order, thereby denying procedural fairness.

The appeal was allowed in part to make the parenting time order interim and to slightly reduce the costs awarded to the mother.

This 10-day trial addressed complex family law issues between unmarried parents, including decision-making authority, child relocation, and financial matters.

The court found the father not credible and noted a pattern of family violence.

The mother was granted sole decision-making authority and permission to relocate with the child to British Columbia, as it was deemed in the child's best interests due to the mother's stronger support network and the father's unsupportive and abusive conduct.

The father was ordered to pay child support arrears and a higher proportion of travel costs, and the court declined to impute income to the mother.

The child's surname was changed to include both parents' names.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order to place the child in the care of the maternal grandmother for six months subject to supervision.

The mother had suffered a medical incident, struggled with substance abuse, and had not been in contact with the Society or her counsel for several months.

The father was noted in default.

Applying the test for summary judgment in child protection proceedings, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, determined the child remained in need of protection, and concluded that the requested supervision order was the least intrusive option in the child's best interests.

This endorsement concerns a temporary care hearing under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Children's Aid Society, the mother, the maternal grandparents, and the Office of the Children's Lawyer sought to have the child remain in the care of the maternal grandparents.

The father sought to have the child placed in his care.

The court found that the maternal grandparents and mother had "charge of the child" immediately before the CAS intervention.

Applying the laddered approach under s. 94(2) of the CYFSA, and finding no protection concerns with the maternal grandparents, the court ordered the child to remain in their temporary care and custody.

The court also considered the least disruptive placement and the child's best interests, both of which supported placement with the maternal grandparents, despite the father's arguments and historical concerns regarding his conduct.

The mother in a child protection proceeding brought a motion to disqualify the father's counsel, alleging a conflict of interest based on his prior interactions with the maternal grandfather and the mother.

The court found no disqualifying conflict of interest, as the mother was never a client and the grandfather's prior consultation did not yield relevant confidential information.

Furthermore, the court held that even if a conflict existed, disqualification was unwarranted due to the delay in bringing the motion and the significant prejudice to the father in retaining new counsel on the eve of trial.

The motion was dismissed.

In a child protection proceeding, the respondent mother brought a motion for DNA testing to determine the paternity of her eight-year-old child.

The mother alleged that another man, rather than the respondent father who had raised the child, might be the biological father.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the mother failed to meet the evidentiary onus, the alleged biological father did not meet the statutory definition of a parent under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, and ordering a DNA test would not be in the child's best interests.

The respondent father brought a motion to change seeking to set aside a 2012 final order for spousal and child support that was obtained by the applicant mother on an uncontested basis.

The father argued the mother failed to make full and frank disclosure when she proceeded without notice.

The court found that while the mother's disclosure was lacking in some respects, the omissions were not material.

Applying rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules, the court dismissed the request to set aside the order due to the father's significant and unexplained delay in bringing the motion, the lack of an arguable defence, and the prejudice that setting aside the order would cause to the mother.