Family and Matrimonial Law

The Applicant sought costs of a motion and the overall proceeding after a settlement agreement in a high-conflict family law case.

The Respondent also sought costs.

The court awarded the Applicant $5,000 plus HST and disbursements for the motion on a full recovery basis, payable from the Respondent's share of net proceeds.

For the costs of the proceeding, the court found neither party substantially successful in the settlement but determined the Applicant was entitled to partial indemnity costs due to the Respondent's unreasonable and obstructionist behaviour, including failure to disclose financial information and comply with court orders.

The quantum for the proceeding costs was reserved for a further attendance, requiring the Applicant to submit a revised bill of costs excluding "steps in the case" where costs were already dealt with.

The Respondent's claim of inability to pay was rejected due to his lack of financial disclosure and unreasonable conduct.

This is a decision on the identification of a child under section 90(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA).

The child was previously identified under the former Child and Family Services Act (CFSA), but re-identification was necessary under the new CYFSA framework.

The court examined the statutory requirements for identifying a child as a First Nations, Inuk, or Métis child, including membership in a band and identification with a band or community.

The court found that the child was not a First Nations child, as the child was not on any band membership list and neither parent had indicated the band with which the child identifies.

The applicant brought a contempt motion against the respondent for alleged violations of a parenting order issued on July 31, 2017.

The court found the respondent guilty of one instance of contempt for deliberately overholding the child for one week beyond the ordered access period in August 2017.

The court rejected the applicant's allegations of further contempt, finding that the respondent's subsequent conduct either complied with the order or involved ambiguities in the order's interpretation that did not constitute clear violations.

The court imposed a penalty of a $500 charitable donation rather than a monetary fine or imprisonment.

This is a costs decision following a trial on child support and spousal support issues.

The applicant sought costs of $115,000.00 all inclusive, while the respondent submitted that costs should be fixed at $18,000.00 with a $3,000.00 set-off.

The trial resulted in an order for ongoing child support based on structured settlement annuity payments, dismissal of the applicant's retroactive child support claim, and dismissal of the respondent's request to terminate spousal support.

The court found the applicant was substantially more successful on the significant issues and awarded costs of $47,000.00 inclusive, payable at $1,200.00 per month commencing July 1, 2018.

This is a costs decision following a focused hearing on access to a three-year-old child.

The father, as the successful party on the merits, sought costs of $11,695.50.

However, the court denied all costs due to the father's egregious post-trial conduct, specifically his public Facebook post containing vulgar and abusive language directed at the trial judge.

The court found that while the father was technically successful and had made a reasonable settlement offer, his unreasonable behaviour warranted deprivation of costs as a sanction and deterrent.

This is a costs endorsement following a one-day trial concerning parental access to a three-year-old child.

The mother sought costs of $21,843 from the father.

The court found the mother was the successful party, having obtained an order for supervised access substantially closer to her position than the father's position.

The father exhibited unreasonable behaviour including failure to follow court timetables, delayed disclosure of criminal records, breaches of temporary court orders, and failure to make settlement offers.

The court declined to find bad faith but awarded costs reflecting the father's unreasonable conduct and the mother's reasonable behaviour throughout the proceedings.

The mother brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the father's motion to change custody and access provisions of a 2013 order.

The father sought joint custody, expanded access including mid-week overnight visits and school pick-ups, and changes to child support.

The court found no material change in circumstances warranting variation of the custody and access order.

The father's allegations regarding continued conflict, progressive hearing loss, need for American Sign Language instruction, cancelled visits, and other claimed changes were all found to be either not material or not supported by evidence.

The court granted the mother's summary judgment motion and dismissed the father's motion to change custody and access, while adjourning the child support variation claim.

The court also imposed a requirement that the father obtain leave before bringing any further motions to change custody or access.

The applicant mother sought an order dispensing with the respondent father's consent to change their seven-year-old daughter's surname from McDonough to either Pastran-McDonough or McDonough-Pastran.

The parents had joint custody pursuant to a Separation Agreement that required mutual consent for name changes.

The father withheld consent and argued that no material change in circumstances had occurred since the Agreement was signed.

The court granted the mother's motion, finding that the proposed name change was in the child's best interests.

The court rejected the material change threshold as inapplicable to Change of Name Act applications and applied the statutory best interests test instead.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship with no access.

The child had been apprehended at birth and had significant developmental and medical needs, while evidence established that the mother had severe cognitive limitations and limited support resources.

Applying Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the society had established a prima facie case that the child was in need of protection.

The court further found that less intrusive alternatives were inadequate and that permanence was urgently required given the child’s needs.

The statutory presumption against access to Crown wards was not rebutted because there was insufficient evidence that access would be beneficial and meaningful to the child or would not impair adoption prospects.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent successfully brought a motion against three non-party corporations seeking financial disclosure required by a business valuator to determine the applicant’s income.

After the motion succeeded and disclosure was ordered subject to a confidentiality agreement, the parties returned to court to resolve disputes over the confidentiality terms and costs.

Both sides sought substantial indemnity costs and relied on offers to settle under Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that neither party met the burden of proving that the result was as favourable as their respective offers and therefore assessed costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Applying the factors in Rule 24 and considering the respondent’s substantial success on the disclosure motion, the court ordered the non-parties to pay costs.

Mid-trial evidentiary ruling in a family law custody and access dispute concerning the admissibility of a custody and access assessment prepared in a prior proceeding between the same parties.

The respondent argued the report was inadmissible under s. 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court held that although the report could not be admitted automatically under s. 30(9), that provision does not displace the general law of evidence.

The assessor was not prohibited from testifying and may provide factual or opinion evidence if common law expert evidence requirements are met.

However, the report itself was ordered removed from the trial record and may only be tendered when the witness testifies.

The applicant sought temporary spousal support following a long-term marriage and the sale of the parties’ shared corporate interests in a real estate development business.

The respondent argued that support should not be ordered due to the applicant’s capital assets, alleged cohabitation with a wealthy partner, and claims that the corporate buyout constituted advance income that would create double recovery.

The court found that the parties were not in equal financial positions post-separation and rejected the argument that the applicant should rely on her partner or exhaust capital.

Pending trial and despite incomplete financial disclosure, the court fixed temporary incomes and applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines to determine interim support.

Temporary spousal support of $10,000 per month was ordered retroactive to September 2013, with earlier retroactive support left for determination at trial.

The court considered whether to confirm or vary a provisional interprovincial support order under s. 19(7) of the Divorce Act.

The moving party had failed to disclose income as required by an earlier order and had stopped paying child support and maintaining life insurance.

The court determined the proper historical incomes of both parties and recalculated guideline child support and section 7 expenses retroactively to 2009, allocating expenses proportionally to income and accounting for the child’s own earnings.

Arrears were calculated for unpaid child support, unpaid section 7 contributions, and insurance premiums.

The provisional order was varied and the moving party was ordered to pay substantial arrears and ongoing support.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding involving custody of two children, the court addressed a request for costs arising from a motion to adjourn the scheduled trial.

The Office of the Children’s Lawyer sought an eight‑month adjournment shortly before trial due to scheduling conflicts and illness of the clinical investigator, which the father opposed.

The court ultimately granted a shorter adjournment to an earlier date than requested.

Applying rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the objectives of costs awards, the court found the result represented divided success and noted concerns about the lack of detail provided to justify the adjournment request.

Exercising its discretion, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs of the motion.

Following a motion in a family law proceeding where the respondent successfully obtained an order referring the matter to mediation/arbitration and appointing a parenting coordinator, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The successful party sought $2,500 on a partial indemnity basis, but the notice of motion had requested only $1,500.

The court held that a costs award should not exceed the amount requested in the notice of motion.

Given that a pending arbitration would determine whether the successful party was in arrears, the court ordered costs of $1,500 payable only upon the arbitrator’s award or other resolution of the matter.

Following a family law motion in which the respondent was found to have breached a prior court order requiring cooperation with a reintegration program, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving party sought full recovery costs alleging unreasonable conduct and bad faith, while the responding party argued no costs should be awarded and sought costs relating to an adjournment.

The court found the moving party had been successful on the most important issue, namely the finding of breach of the court order.

While rejecting the claim for full recovery costs and excluding work related to unrelated issues, the court fixed a fair and reasonable amount payable by the unsuccessful party.

The respondent spouse brought a motion for interim spousal support following a short marriage that ended shortly after the respondent immigrated to Canada through the applicant’s sponsorship.

The court considered whether a spouse who emigrates to Canada through a sponsorship undertaking and suffers career disruption may be entitled to enhanced interim support despite the short duration of the marriage.

The court found that the respondent suffered economic disadvantage by leaving an established career abroad and entering a labour market where her credentials were not recognized.

The court held that the sponsorship undertaking and the respondent’s transitional needs justified departure from the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Interim spousal support and related educational expenses were ordered to facilitate the respondent’s path to self‑sufficiency.

The parties settled a family law dispute at a pre‑trial, leaving only the issue of costs for determination.

The issues in the proceeding included custody, access, child support, section 7 expenses, health insurance coverage, and equalization of net family property.

The applicant had served an offer to settle that substantially formed the basis of the final settlement, while the respondent’s offer was served less than seven days before trial and was non‑severable except for equalization.

The court held that the applicant was the successful party and that the respondent’s late offer had limited significance.

Although the applicant sought full indemnity costs exceeding $15,000, the court fixed costs at $9,000 payable forthwith by the respondent.

The respondent father brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the applicant mother’s claims for spousal support, property division, and sole custody.

The mother filed no responding materials and failed to appear on the motion.

The court held that summary judgment was not appropriate for the spousal support and property claims because the evidentiary record was incomplete, largely due to disclosure deficiencies.

However, relying on an uncontradicted Office of the Children’s Lawyer report and the father’s affidavit evidence, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial on custody and access and granted the father sole custody with access to the mother.

The remaining financial claims were permitted to proceed to trial.

This is a status review application concerning a child apprehended at birth due to parental concerns including domestic violence, substance abuse, intellectual and developmental delays, and allegations of sexual assault by the father.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship for adoption purposes.

The mother sought the child's return under a supervision order.

The court found that the mother's extremely low intelligence (IQ 57), poor judgment, inability to work cooperatively with the Society, and pattern of dishonesty made her unsuitable as a primary caregiver.

The court rejected the mother's proposed plan with her fiancé as inadequate.

Crown wardship for adoption was ordered without access.