Family and Matrimonial Law

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion to set aside an undefended trial decision and the granting of the Law Society's request to transfer an action, the court determined costs.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that costs could not be awarded without formal motion records.

The court declined to award costs personally against the respondent's counsel to avoid further delay.

However, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs against the respondent, finding his conduct constituted an abuse of process designed to complicate and delay the proceedings.

Costs were fixed at $3,987.77 for the Law Society and $12,500.00 for the applicant.

The applicant moved for the equal distribution of the net sale proceeds of a jointly owned investment condominium following the parties' separation.

The self-represented respondent objected, claiming a holdback for management fees she incurred while managing the property.

The court noted that while a joint tenant cannot typically charge management fees, the respondent's claim could be framed in equity as unjust enrichment or constructive trust.

Applying the principles for self-represented litigants, the court dismissed the applicant's motion without prejudice and granted the respondent leave to amend her pleadings to properly assert her equitable claims.

The applicant step-father sought costs following a successful motion to resume contact with the child.

He sought full recovery costs of $26,570.27 based on an offer to settle.

The respondent mother argued for reduced costs due to partial success, financial hardship, and trauma-based motivations.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful on the core issue of resuming contact and that his costs were proportional.

The court fixed costs at $20,000, to be paid at a rate of $200 per month set off against the applicant's ongoing child support obligations.

Following an oral judgment ordering the resumption of contact between a parent and child, the court directed counsel to provide submissions or a consent agreement regarding the practical facilitation and early schedule for the contact.

The court scheduled a follow-up hearing in the event the parties could not agree.

The applicant step-father brought a motion seeking contact and parenting time with his 5-year-old step-child after the respondent mother unilaterally terminated contact for nine months.

The mother argued that as a non-parent, the applicant had no presumptive right to access and that resumed contact would negatively affect her mental health.

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated a settled intention to treat the child as his own and had been authentically involved in parenting.

The court ordered the resumption of contact, emphasizing that a biological parent cannot arbitrarily deprive a child of a committed step-parent relationship.

The moving party requested an urgent Case Conference but filed a 16-page, single-spaced brief with improper attachments, breaching the Practice Direction.

The court refused to proceed with the conference on the documents filed, emphasizing that counsel must follow the Rules and Practice Directions and that chronic inattention to them is unacceptable.

The matter was adjourned to allow for the filing of corrected briefs.

The applicant father commenced family law proceedings but failed to take any steps to move the matter forward.

The respondent mother was granted leave to proceed by way of an uncontested trial.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, and the ability to travel without the father's consent.

The father was ordered to pay ongoing child support, arrears for section 7 expenses, and a proportionate share of prospective section 7 expenses.

A divorce was also granted.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the respondent's appeal for delay, and the respondent brought a cross-motion to extend the time to perfect her appeal.

The respondent was appealing a summary judgment order that found the child in need of protection, placed the child in extended society care, and denied her access.

The court applied the test for extending time to perfect an appeal and found that the respondent provided no explanation for the delay, there was prejudice to the child in further delay, and the evidentiary record supported the motion judge's conclusions.

The respondent's motion to extend time was dismissed, and the applicant's motion to dismiss the appeal for delay was granted.

The mother was previously found in contempt of court for breaching parenting orders and alienating the child from the father.

At the penalty hearing, the court found the mother had not purged her contempt and continued to act unilaterally.

The court declined to change the child's primary residence or impose a jail sentence, finding a motion to change was the appropriate vehicle for custody issues.

Instead, the court ordered the mother to pay a $2,000 fine, reimburse the father $4,725 for reunification counselling, complete a high-conflict parenting course, and pay full indemnity costs of $16,314.38.

The respondent husband brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant wife's application to set aside their separation agreement.

The wife brought a cross-motion for financial disclosure.

The wife argued the agreement should be set aside due to financial non-disclosure, duress, undue influence, and unconscionability, alleging the husband dictated the terms and threatened her.

The court found genuine issues for trial regarding the validity of the agreement, noting the husband's failure to provide financial disclosure and evasiveness during cross-examination.

The court dismissed the husband's motion for summary judgment, granted the wife's motion for financial disclosure, and ordered the husband to pay costs on a full recovery basis.

In a trial continuation regarding parenting time and a restraining order, the court considered the father's request for unsupervised parenting time with his youngest child and the mother's request for a final restraining order.

The court found that the father had engaged in family violence and struggled with emotional control, while the mother had failed to actively encourage the child's relationship with the father.

The court ordered the father to attend individual therapy and reunification counselling before commencing supervised parenting time.

The mother's request for a final restraining order was dismissed, but a no-contact order was issued under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The applicant and respondent both brought short motions.

Due to time constraints and outstanding productions, the court only heard submissions on temporary without prejudice child support.

The respondent, a self-employed contractor, had not paid child support since separation.

The court estimated the respondent's income by adding back certain business expenses to his net income, determining an annualized gross income of $52,500 and an income for child support purposes of $36,750.

The court ordered the respondent to pay temporary child support of $546 per month and adjourned the remaining matters to a long motion.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's civil action, which included claims for vehicle ownership, unjust enrichment, malicious prosecution, and defamation.

The parties had previously resolved their matrimonial dispute in family court, which included an order regarding the vehicle.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, finding that the plaintiff's civil claims were barred by cause of action estoppel under the doctrine of res judicata, as they arose from the same facts and ought to have been litigated in the family proceedings.

The Mother brought a motion to find the Father in contempt for failing to comply with a 2018 court order requiring him to disclose his IP addresses, cell phone numbers, and email addresses.

The court found the Father in contempt, noting his intentional refusal to provide the IP addresses despite having the ability to do so.

After the Father failed to purge his contempt, the court imposed a $2,500 fine, ordered him not to denigrate the Mother online, dispensed with his consent for the Mother to obtain third-party disclosure regarding malicious online posts, and ordered him to pay $5,500 in costs.

The moving party brought a motion for a temporary reduction of his spousal support obligation pending a full hearing on his Motion to Change, citing his medical release from the military and reliance on pension income.

The responding party brought a cross-motion for financial disclosure.

Applying the test for interim variation, the court found the moving party failed to establish urgency or hardship, and noted his failure to provide accurate and ongoing financial disclosure.

The motion for a temporary reduction in support was dismissed, and both parties were ordered to provide updated financial disclosure.

The applicant sought spousal support, claiming the parties lived in a conjugal relationship for six years.

The respondent denied they were spouses, asserting the applicant was an unwelcome guest who refused to leave and became violent.

The court applied the Molodowich criteria and found the parties did not live in a conjugal relationship, dismissing the spousal support claim.

Additionally, the court dismissed a preliminary motion to initialize the parties' names and granted the respondent's request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant, barring her from instituting further proceedings against him without leave.

Following a motion where the applicant was permitted to amend the application, the respondent was unsuccessful on disclosure, and neither party obtained an advance of funds, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought $2,073.06 and the respondent sought $17,500.00.

Considering the mixed success and the parties' offers, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent costs of $3,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, the respondent mother brought a motion seeking an extension of time to respond to the applicant father's Request to Admit to avoid deemed admissions, and to strike two subsequent Requests to Admit.

The court found that the respondent had served a blanket refusal within the required 20 days, meaning no deemed admissions occurred, and thus no extension was necessary.

The court also struck the applicant's second and third Requests to Admit as improper and an abuse of process, noting they sought admissions about privileged settlement conference discussions.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against two properties, claiming a beneficial interest through a resulting trust.

The properties had been registered in the names of her family members.

The court found that the claim regarding one property was statute-barred by the 10-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act.

For the other property, although there was a triable issue, the court declined to grant the equitable remedy of a CPL because the plaintiff admitted she originally registered the properties in her family members' names to shield them from her husband's equalization claims, thereby violating the clean hands doctrine.

The defendants requested a review of the plaintiffs' statement of claim under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs' action sought damages against various entities involved in a prior child protection proceeding that resulted in their children becoming Crown wards.

The court found that the action was an impermissible attempt to relitigate issues already decided in the child protection proceeding.

The court dismissed the action in its entirety as an abuse of process.