Anne C. Trousdale

This case addresses the duration of spousal support in a 17-year traditional marriage where the Applicant sacrificed her career for child-rearing while the Respondent advanced his.

The parties had settled most issues, including equalization and the quantum of spousal support, but disagreed on whether support should have a fixed termination date, be indefinite, or be subject to a review.

The court found the Applicant had a strong entitlement to both compensatory and non-compensatory support due to economic disadvantages from the marriage and ongoing uncertainty in her employment.

Applying the Divorce Act and relevant jurisprudence, the court ordered indefinite spousal support, subject to variation upon a material change in circumstances, declining to impose an automatic termination or review date.

The respondent brought a motion to change a 2008 consent order, seeking to terminate or reduce his spousal support obligations due to his planned retirement at age 62, his remarriage, and the applicant's re-partnering and turning 65.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought a retroactive increase in support based on the respondent's post-separation income increases.

The court found that the respondent's voluntary retirement, the applicant's age, and the parties' new relationships did not constitute a material change in circumstances.

The court also dismissed the applicant's claim for retroactive support, noting the support was needs-based.

Both the motion to change and the request for retroactive increase were dismissed.

The moving party (former husband) brought a motion to change a 2013 consent order to terminate his $1,500 monthly spousal support obligation and life insurance requirement, citing his voluntary retirement at age 65 and resulting income reduction.

The court found his retirement constituted a material change in circumstances.

However, recognizing the responding party's compensatory claims from a 25-year marriage where she stayed home to raise four children, the court declined to terminate support entirely.

Instead, spousal support was reduced to $1.00 per month effective July 1, 2016, and the life insurance obligation was maintained to secure potential future support.

The children's aid society brought a status review application seeking Crown wardship of two children for the purpose of adoption.

The mother sought the return of the children subject to society supervision, while the father was noted in default.

The court found that the mother's ongoing struggle with illicit substance abuse and her inability to maintain sustained abstinence posed a significant risk to the children, particularly given one child's developmental delays.

The court also noted concerns regarding ongoing contact with the abusive father.

The children were made Crown wards for the purpose of adoption, with the mother granted access at the society's discretion and the father denied access.

Following a successful motion to change where the applicant obtained sole custody and permission to relocate the child, the applicant sought full recovery costs of over $34,000, alleging unreasonable behaviour by the respondent.

The court found the respondent's defence of the status quo was not unreasonable or in bad faith.

Considering the divided success on some minor issues and the reasonable expectations of the parties, the court awarded the applicant costs of $8,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

This case involved cross-motions to change a joint custody order.

The respondent mother sought sole custody, while the applicant father sought sole custody and permission to relocate the child from Kingston to Borden, Ontario.

The court found a material change in circumstances, including the father's military relocation, the mother's mental health issues, poor judgment in parenting decisions, and ongoing parental conflict.

Considering the child's best interests, the court granted the father sole custody and permission to relocate the child to Borden, finding his plan offered greater stability and security.

The mother was granted access, with transportation responsibilities shared after an initial period.

Child support from the mother to the father was waived due to undue hardship.

The Respondent mother brought a motion to change a consent order regarding custody and access, seeking increased time with the child and other variations.

The Applicant father brought a cross-motion seeking sole custody and reduced access for the mother.

The court found no material change in circumstances to justify a change in custody or significant changes in access, dismissing the father's motion for sole custody.

While the mother's request for 50% time was denied, the existing order was clarified and varied to allow for Monday morning returns after weekend access and additional time on PA days/holidays.

Several other minor changes regarding holiday schedules, telephone access, and communication methods were made by consent or court order.

Following an application for directions regarding a holograph codicil, the estate trustee sought full indemnity costs of $72,441.81 from the unsuccessful respondent beneficiary.

The respondent argued costs should be paid by the estate due to ambiguities caused by the testator.

The court applied the modern approach to estate litigation costs, finding the respondent's position unreasonable given her legal background.

However, the court reduced the claimed amount, ordering the respondent to pay $20,000 and the estate to pay $15,000 to the estate trustee.

Following the dismissal of a motion brought by the defendant and a lien claimant to declare the plaintiff's construction lien expired, the court determined the costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of over $80,000, citing an unaccepted offer to settle and the importance of the motion.

The court found the offer did not comply with Rule 49 and awarded partial indemnity costs.

Applying the principle of proportionality and considering the factors in Rule 57.01, the court fixed costs at $22,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville (the Society) brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and a final order granting custody to the father with supervised access for the mother.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing that a full trial was necessary.

The court granted summary judgment on the finding that the children were in need of protection, citing the mother's assault convictions and mental health issues.

However, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment regarding the disposition, finding a genuine issue for trial concerning the parents' abilities to care for the children and the lack of a solid, workable access plan for the mother, particularly given the high hostility between the parents and the children's wishes.

This endorsement concerns the costs of a motion where the defendants successfully struck out the plaintiff's statement of claim, with leave granted to the plaintiff to amend.

The defendants, having been substantially successful on the underlying motion, sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The self-represented plaintiff did not submit costs submissions despite being permitted to do so.

The court fixed the defendants' costs at $5,500.00, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable by the plaintiff within 30 days.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiff's 47-page claim, arguing it failed to comply with pleading rules by being disorganized, argumentative, and lacking material facts for purported causes of action.

The court found the claim deficient, containing argument, law, opinion, and evidence rather than concise material facts.

While the claim was struck, the plaintiff was granted leave to amend within 90 days, with specific guidance provided on how to properly plead various torts, including constitutional rights infringements, breach of statutory duty, abuse of process, misfeasance in public office, malicious prosecution, intimidation, intentional infliction of mental suffering, civil fraud, defamation, and conspiracy.

The court emphasized the need for specific dates, connections to defendants, and supporting facts for each claim.

The Estate Trustee sought court directions regarding the validity of three potential holograph codicils and the disposition of life insurance proceeds from the estate of Franklin Walter Briggs.

The court found two documents (July 29, 2013, and August 8, 2014) to be valid holograph codicils, but a third document, the "Notes Document" was deemed a planning document and not a valid testamentary instrument due to lack of signature, date, and formal language.

The court also ruled that the July 29, 2013 document, despite being a valid codicil, did not constitute a valid declaration under the Insurance Act to change the beneficiary of life insurance policies, as it failed to specifically identify the insurance contract or fund.

Consequently, the life insurance proceeds belonged to the estate, not a specific beneficiary.

The defendants Laari Construction Ltd. and SMS Rents brought a motion seeking a declaration that the plaintiff Carpenters Union's construction lien had expired due to non-compliance with Section 34(5) of the Construction Lien Act.

The defendants argued that the lien was improperly registered because it did not contain the names and addresses of the individual Carpenters Union members who performed the work.

The Carpenters Union contended that naming the trustee as agent for affected members was sufficient, especially given the practical difficulties in identifying individual workers and their specific entitlements at the time of registration.

The court found that the Carpenters Union had sufficiently identified the lien claimants by naming the trustee as agent for the affected members and complied with Section 34(5) of the Act.

Consequently, the motion brought by Laari and SMS Rents was dismissed.

Following a prior summary judgment finding that the children were in need of protection under s. 37(2) of the Child and Family Services Act, the court conducted a disposition trial to determine the appropriate order under ss. 57 and 57.1 of the Act.

The court considered competing plans: returning the children to the mother under supervision, leaving them with the father under supervision, or granting custody to the father.

Evidence included concerns about the mother’s home conditions, limited cooperation with the child protection agency, the influence of a boarder who exercised harsh discipline, and the mother’s difficulty implementing parenting supports.

The children had lived with the father for approximately 18 months and were adjusting well academically and socially.

Applying the best interests factors in s. 37(3), the court concluded that the children’s safety, stability, and developmental needs were best served by granting custody to the father.

Following a multi-day family law trial involving claims for divorce, equalization of net family property, spousal support, and unjust enrichment relating to improvements made to farm property owned by the wife's grandparents, the court determined costs.

The applicant had succeeded in obtaining a $50,000 judgment for unjust enrichment against the grandparents, while the respondent spouse obtained an equalization award exceeding $41,000 and dismissal of other claims occurred.

The court analyzed competing offers to settle under Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules and considered the relative success of the parties and the reasonableness of their settlement positions.

Although success was divided, the court found the applicant overall more successful, particularly on the unjust enrichment claim.

Costs were awarded to the applicant in a reduced and proportional amount.

Following a marriage breakdown, the applicant sought equalization, opposed the spouse's spousal support and damages claims, and advanced an unjust enrichment claim against the spouse's grandparents arising from extensive labour and financial contributions to a farm property.

The court found unjust enrichment and awarded monetary relief of $50,000, including reimbursement for garage materials, holding there was enrichment, corresponding deprivation, and no juristic reason.

The court resolved several contested valuation issues for equalization purposes, excluded disputed pit-licence interests from net family property, and found an equalization payment owing from the applicant to the spouse.

The spouse's claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering was dismissed as not available in the family law context, and her spousal support claim was also dismissed.

Prejudgment interest was awarded on both monetary judgments.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant to answer refusals from his examination for discovery, including questions about legal advice he received regarding a Highway Traffic Act charge and questions about his criminal record.

The court found that the defendant partially waived solicitor-client privilege by testifying that he pleaded guilty to the traffic charge solely because his lawyer told him to do so, and ordered specific disclosure of the lawyer's file.

However, the court dismissed the request for the defendant's criminal record, finding it irrelevant to the pleadings and directed solely to credibility.

The defendant LawPRO brought a motion to enforce a purported settlement under Rule 49.09.

The plaintiffs had offered to dismiss their claim against LawPRO without costs.

LawPRO purported to accept the offer but added a condition requiring all cross-claiming defendants to execute a release.

The court found that this conditional acceptance constituted a counter-offer, which the plaintiffs never accepted.

The plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their original offer.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no binding settlement existed.

Following an 18-day family law trial primarily concerning custody and access, the applicant father sought costs of $73,687.

The respondent mother argued for no costs due to divided success and her limited financial means.

The court found the applicant was more successful overall, having succeeded on the primary issue of the children's residence.

After considering the parties' conduct, offers to settle, and the respondent's financial hardship, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $52,000.

The court allowed the costs to be set off against any equalization payment but declined to set them off against spousal support or secure them against the respondent's separate civil litigation claim.