Anna Towlson

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 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 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.

The mother applied for sole custody and primary residence of the parties' four-year-old child, while the father sought joint custody and equal parenting time.

The court found both parents fit but noted historical acrimony and the father's instability.

The court ordered joint custody, with the mother having final decision-making authority over education.

The child's primary residence was ordered to remain with the mother, with the father receiving alternate weekends and Wednesday overnights during the school year, and equal parenting time during the summer.

The father was also ordered to pay ongoing child support and arrears based on his ODSP income.

The maternal grandmother appealed an order granting the foster parent expanded rights of participation and disclosure in a focused hearing regarding the grandmother's access to the child, who had been made a Crown Ward.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge reasonably exercised her discretion and properly applied the relevant factors in determining that the foster parent's participation was in the child's best interests.

The moving party (respondent in the main proceeding) brought a motion to set aside a final order that struck his pleadings and released the proceeds of the sale of the family home to the responding party.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction as the proper route to challenge a final order is an appeal to the Court of Appeal or Divisional Court.

In the alternative, the court held that the motion would be dismissed on the merits due to the moving party's recalcitrant conduct, failure to comply with disclosure orders, and failure to provide evidence supporting his claims.

Costs were awarded to the responding party.

Following a successful family law appeal and motion for further evidence, the court considered the appropriate costs award.

The respondent did not participate in the costs submissions, leaving the court to assess costs without information about her financial circumstances.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and relevant appellate jurisprudence, the court held that the successful party was presumptively entitled to costs but rejected a claim for full recovery or indemnity costs based on alleged bad faith.

The court declined to overturn the trial judge’s original costs order but rescinded any unpaid balance owing by the applicant due to changed parenting circumstances.

A reasonable and proportionate costs award of $12,000 plus disbursements of $4,379.96 was ordered, payable by the respondent at $300 per month.

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.