Anne C. Trousdale

This decision addresses whether a religious marriage ceremony (Nikah) performed in Ontario without a marriage licence or registration can be deemed a valid marriage under s. 31 of the Marriage Act, and whether the parties are "spouses" for the purposes of the Family Law Act.

The court finds that the applicant intended to be legally married and relied on the respondent to make the necessary arrangements, satisfying the requirements of s. 31.

The marriage is deemed valid, and both parties are declared spouses entitled to claim equalization of net family property.

The Applicant brought a motion to change, seeking a declaration of the Respondent's 2018 income for the purpose of calculating and enforcing child and spousal support for 2019, based on a prior consent order.

The Respondent cross-moved, opposing the declaration, arguing that capital gains from a share sale should be excluded as non-recurring income to avoid "double-dipping," and seeking to terminate child support for all three children.

The court found jurisdiction to make the income declaration, ruled that the Respondent's full Line 150 income (including taxable capital gains) should be used for support calculations as per the consent order, and terminated child support for the second child who had graduated and was independent, but continued it for the third child.

The Respondent sought to vary, rescind, or suspend a 2007 spousal support order, including arrears, arguing a lack of evidence for the original quantum and material changes in circumstances.

The Applicant opposed, arguing no material change and blameworthy conduct by the Respondent.

The court dismissed the Respondent's request to vary the quantum or rescind arrears, finding his financial disclosure inadequate and his conduct blameworthy.

However, the court varied the duration of spousal support, ordering it to terminate after six years (72 monthly payments of $3,000), and directed FRO to recalculate arrears accordingly.

The applicant sought an urgent hearing for a temporary restraining order during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, determined the matter appeared urgent but emphasized the need for strict compliance with special service rules for the underlying application, particularly given the quasi-criminal nature of a restraining order.

The court ordered the application to be issued and properly served before further review for a teleconference hearing.

The applicant mother sought the immediate return of her child, K, in accordance with an existing temporary order, alleging the respondent father was withholding the child.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking temporary custody of K, citing concerns about the mother's non-compliance with Covid-19 protocols, hygiene, and home maintenance.

The court found both motions had urgent aspects related to Covid-19 but dismissed the father's non-Covid-19 related concerns as not urgent.

The court ordered the continuation of the existing temporary order, requiring the father to return the child to the mother, and mandated both parties to comply with Public Health Covid-19 protocols.

The respondent's motion for temporary custody was dismissed.

The applicant mother sought a temporary change in child residency and parenting time due to COVID-19 concerns related to the father's partner's occupation as a personal support worker in a long-term care facility, and a week-about schedule during school closures.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion to enforce existing orders.

The court dismissed both motions, finding no material change in circumstances to justify altering existing final orders, and that the father and his partner were taking reasonable precautions.

The court emphasized the need for co-operation and full disclosure regarding COVID-19 issues.

This case involved a motion and cross-motion to change a final consent order regarding custody, parenting time, child support, and Section 7 expenses for a 4.5-year-old child.

The court maintained joint custody, denying the mother's request for a final say in decision-making and the father's request for immediate 50/50 parenting.

Instead, a gradual increase in the father's parenting time was ordered, leading to a 2-2-3 shared parenting schedule after the 2020/2021 school year.

Specific holiday schedules, rules for exchanges, passport/travel, extended health benefits, and communication protocols were established.

The court also addressed child support arrears, adjusting the father's payments retroactively and ordering monthly payments towards arrears.

A prohibition on the child's contact with the father's brother, who faced child pornography charges, was also ordered.

This costs endorsement followed a five-day trial concerning equalization of net family property, imputation of income, spousal support, child support, and Section 7 expenses.

The Applicant sought full indemnity costs of $45,225.03, while the Respondent argued for a 50% reduction and disallowance of a special disbursement.

The court, applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and principles from Mattina v. Mattina, found the Applicant had significant overall success, particularly on equalization and support, despite not achieving her highest claims.

The Respondent's inadequate financial disclosure and unreasonable position on equalization were noted.

The court disallowed a special disbursement for investigation services deemed premature.

Ultimately, the Applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs of $26,071.40, with half attributed to child and spousal support.

The Applicant sought equalization of net family property, retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, and Section 7 expenses.

The parties disputed the cohabitation date, the Respondent's interest in a farm property, and the inclusion of certain bank accounts and deductions in the Net Family Property Statement.

The court found the Applicant credible and the Respondent not credible, imputed income to the Respondent due to inadequate financial disclosure and intentional under-employment, and ordered an equalization payment, ongoing child and spousal support, and retroactive Section 7 expenses.

The divorce was granted.

The Applicant (mother) sought to establish Ontario jurisdiction for custody and access of two children, A and B, who were habitually resident in New York State with the Respondent (father).

The father had an existing Ontario custody order from 2014.

The mother withheld the children in Ontario after an access visit.

The court applied the Children's Law Reform Act, finding that both children were habitually resident in New York State and that the mother's actions constituted self-help.

The court declined to exercise jurisdiction under s. 22(1)(a) or s. 22(1)(b) of the Act, as not all criteria were met, and found that New York State was the appropriate jurisdiction due to the children's closer connection there.

The Applicant's application was dismissed.

The Applicant sought full indemnity costs after successfully obtaining an order for DNA paternity testing of the Respondent.

The Respondent opposed, arguing for lower costs and alleging bad faith by the Applicant.

The court, applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, found the Applicant was the successful party but did not find bad faith by either party.

Considering the importance and complexity of the issues, the reasonableness of counsel's time and hourly rate ($300/hour for 18 years experience), and the absence of applicable offers to settle, the court awarded partial indemnity costs.

The court also affirmed that a legally-aided client's fee arrangement with Legal Aid does not need to be disclosed, and costs should be assessed based on the private rate of the solicitor.

The Respondent was ordered to pay $4,500.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The respondent mother brought a motion to change the surname of the parties' 8-year-old child to include her own surname, hyphenated with the father's surname.

The applicant father opposed the change, arguing it was not in the child's best interests given her age and established identity.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" test under the Change of Name Act, dismissed the mother's request, finding insufficient evidence that the child had an informed, independent, and consistent wish to change her name, or understood the permanent implications.

The court emphasized that changing a child's surname is a major child-rearing decision.

This preliminary costs endorsement addresses the propriety of the applicant's reply submissions following a decision on the applicant's motion.

The respondent challenged three aspects of the applicant's reply: allegations of bad faith, arguments regarding legally-aided costs potentially exceeding actual incurred costs, and the introduction of an offer to settle.

The court found the bad faith arguments in reply were proper as they were raised initially.

However, the court allowed the respondent to make further submissions on the legally-aided costs issue, as it was a new argument introduced in reply.

The court struck out the applicant's reply submissions concerning the offer to settle, finding it was raised for the first time in reply and contrary to a prior agreement and ruling.

This costs endorsement followed a focused hearing to determine the Respondent father's income for child support and Section 7 expenses, specifically addressing the imputation of income from lump sum disability payments received through military service.

The Applicant was largely successful in her position that income should be imputed and grossed up for child support purposes, and was found to have made reasonable settlement offers.

The Respondent, who made no offers and maintained an unreasonable position, was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs to the Applicant.

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.

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.

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.