Anna L. Towlson

The appellant father appealed a trial decision that allowed the respondent mother to relocate with their child to Casselman, Ontario.

The trial judge had relied on the mother's assurances that she would facilitate extensive access.

The appeal court found that the mother had completely obstructed the father's access and marginalized him from the child's life, constituting a material change in circumstances.

The appeal was allowed, and the child was ordered to be returned to the Waterloo Region immediately, with primary care transferring to the father if the mother chose not to return.

A custody and access dispute between a young father and mother regarding their child born in October 2010.

The father initially sought sole custody with no access to the mother after she relocated with the child to Orillia.

The court found that the father was not the primary caregiver, was reluctant in his parenting role, and was motivated by hostility toward the mother rather than genuine parental concern.

The mother, despite her youth and some poor decisions, was found to be the primary caregiver and more child-focused parent.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother with generous access to the father, finding that the father's inflexibility and hostility would prevent him from supporting the child's relationship with the mother.

The decision also criticized the Children's Aid Society for inappropriate interference with court-ordered access and for failing to follow proper procedures.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff’s action, the court addressed costs submissions from the defendants.

The Township of Puslinch sought costs previously fixed at $23,400, which the plaintiff challenged as excessive and duplicative.

The court accepted that a portion of the Township’s costs duplicated a prior motion award and reduced the amount accordingly.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the award should be limited due to the plaintiff’s financial circumstances.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation also sought costs for the action and motion, which the court found reasonable in light of the extensive materials and history of the proceeding.

Following a trial concerning alleged loans made by a parent to his daughter and her spouse, the plaintiff succeeded against the co-defendant spouse for two of three loans.

The court had found the spouse jointly liable for the majority of the claimed debt.

On the subsequent costs ruling, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs after a Rule 49 offer to settle that produced a more favourable trial result.

While the court found the plaintiff largely successful and noted the defendant’s conduct had unnecessarily prolonged the trial, the claimed amounts were considered somewhat excessive.

The court fixed costs in the lump sum amount of $70,000 inclusive.

Following a family law trial, the court determined the appropriate costs award after considering the parties’ written submissions and offers to settle under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the wife achieved results equal to or better than her offer to settle and was therefore entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

However, the court reduced the amount claimed due to concerns about excessive clerk hourly rates, insufficient billing detail, and unnecessary trial time devoted to credibility attacks.

The court fixed the wife’s costs at $80,000 for fees plus $8,981.02 in disbursements.

Twenty‑five percent of the costs were deemed related to support issues for enforcement and bankruptcy protection purposes.

The husband brought a motion for an extension of time to serve and file notices of appeal in a matrimonial action and a related debt action.

The delay was initially only one day due to a counting error by his lawyer, but further delay occurred while seeking a stay and settling the trial order.

The Court of Appeal applied the five-factor test for extending time.

The court granted the extension for the debt action and the financial issues in the matrimonial action, finding no prejudice.

However, the court denied the extension for the custody and access issues, noting the children were thriving under the newly implemented schedule and the justice of the case did not warrant disrupting their stability.

The respondent mother sought a stay pending appeal of an Ontario Court of Justice order requiring her to relocate the children’s primary residence to the Waterloo Region or risk losing primary care to the father.

Applying the test for a stay pending appeal in family law matters, the court considered whether the appeal raised a serious question, whether irreparable harm would occur absent a stay, and the balance of convenience, with the best interests of the children as the overriding consideration.

The court found arguable errors in the underlying decision, including the potential expansion of a prior order requiring the mother only to seek employment in the Waterloo Region into an obligation to relocate, and concerns that the custody determination did not fully engage the statutory best interests factors under the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The court also concluded that forcing a relocation before the appeal could cause irreparable harm to the mother’s employment and disrupt the children’s stability.

The balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo pending the appeal.

Following a family law trial involving custody, support, and equalization issues, the court determined costs that had been reserved from earlier interim motions.

The respondent/wife was largely successful at trial, obtaining sole custody of the children and greater child and spousal support than the applicant/husband had proposed.

Success was divided on the issue of equalization due to insufficient evidence regarding alleged property holdings.

The court discounted the costs claimed for the unsuccessful equalization litigation and awarded a reduced amount of costs.

Costs of $22,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes were ordered payable by the applicant/husband, enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant father brought a motion for contempt against the respondent mother for failing to seek employment in the Waterloo Region as required by a consent order dated October 7, 2011.

The mother concurrently brought a motion to change the same order, seeking to remain in Lindsay with the children.

The court found the mother in contempt but proceeded to consider the motion to change on the merits, finding a material change in circumstances.

The court ordered that the children's primary residence be returned to the Region of Waterloo by September 1, 2013, with the mother maintaining primary residence if she relocates, or the children residing with the father if she does not.

The moving party sought an extension of time to appeal an Ontario Court of Justice settlement conference order requiring the children to be returned to another jurisdiction and sought a stay of that order pending appeal.

The court applied the principles governing extensions of time to appeal, including the intention to appeal, explanation for delay, prejudice to the responding party, and the merits of the proposed appeal.

The court held that the moving party’s lack of representation and unfamiliarity with the appeal timelines provided an adequate explanation for delay and that the proposed appeal raised arguable issues concerning the scope of a judge’s authority to make substantive orders at a settlement conference under the Family Law Rules.

Considering the best interests of the children and the potential disruption caused by relocation pending appeal, the court also found it appropriate to stay the order.

The time to file the appeal was extended and the order was stayed subject to compliance with a costs payment schedule.

The father sought custody and child support for a child born in 2003, and sought to prohibit the mother from relocating the child from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to Casselman, Ontario.

The mother cross-claimed for custody and permission to relocate with the child to the Ottawa area, and sought ongoing and retroactive child support.

The parties agreed to joint custody.

The court found that the mother had been the primary caregiver throughout the child's life, while the father had limited involvement in the child's education, health care, and day-to-day needs.

The father's proposed living arrangements were inadequate, and he demonstrated an inability to regulate the child's behaviour.

The mother's plan to relocate with her fiancé LN provided a more stable environment with better access to services and a lifestyle more suited to the child's needs.

The court granted primary residence to the mother and permitted the relocation.

The applicant brought two motions in a family law proceeding concerning interim child and spousal support and related relief.

The primary issue was whether income should be imputed to either party for support purposes.

Applying the three‑step test from Drygala v. Pauli, the court held that although the respondent had voluntarily taken a lower‑paying job, the change was reasonable given the needs of the parties’ child in a shared custody arrangement.

The court also found the applicant was not intentionally underemployed due to health challenges and lack of evidence that better employment was reasonably available.

The court therefore declined to impute income to either party and ordered support based on the respondent’s $70,000 income and the applicant’s $7,500 income, effective January 1, 2013.

The purchaser of a home discovered structural defects and toxic mould after closing.

She sued the vendors, who had built the home themselves, for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misstatement, failure to disclose defects, and negligent construction.

The trial judge found the vendors liable for the cost of demolition and reconstruction.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the findings of fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misstatement, and failure to disclose, finding no evidence of knowledge or reliance.

However, the Court upheld liability for negligent construction, as the vendors owed a duty of care to subsequent purchasers and the defects rendered the house dangerous.

Damages were reduced to the cost of repairing the dangerous defects rather than demolition.