A. Rick Toor

Following a 16-day family law trial, both parties sought costs.

The applicant was overwhelmingly more successful on the major issues, including parenting, and was presumptively entitled to costs.

The court found that the respondent and her former counsel engaged in egregious and unreasonable litigation conduct, including breaching court orders, making unsubstantiated allegations of child abuse, and launching personal attacks.

As a result, the court awarded the applicant costs on a 90% close-to-full recovery basis, fixing the amount at $173,601.90, to be paid from the respondent's share of the net proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home.

The parties separated after a 12.5-year marriage.

The applicant father sought shared parenting, sole decision-making responsibility, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent mother sought sole decision-making, exclusive possession of the home, and various financial claims.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home and granted the applicant sole decision-making responsibility due to the respondent's alienating conduct.

The court ordered an equal shared parenting schedule.

The court also resolved complex financial issues, including equalization of net family properties, post-separation adjustments, occupation rent, and retrospective and prospective child and spousal support.

The applicant was ordered to pay a net amount of $3,100 to the respondent after offsetting all financial claims.

The applicant and respondent engaged in a focused hearing to determine three pivotal issues: the date of separation, the income of both parties, and whether the respondent financially supported the applicant.

The parties had a tumultuous, long-distance marriage spanning 17 years, with conflicting evidence regarding their separation date.

The court preferred the applicant's evidence, finding the date of separation to be May 31, 2015.

The court imputed an annual income of $56,000 to the respondent due to intentional underemployment and $28,000 to the applicant based on minimum wage earning capacity.

Finally, the court determined the respondent provided $98,594 in financial support to the applicant between 2004 and 2017.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking permission to travel to Egypt with the parties' nine-year-old son for a two-week vacation.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, citing the child's complex special needs, the Government of Canada's travel advisory for Egypt, and concerns that the father posed a flight risk.

The court applied a cost/benefit analysis to determine the child's best interests.

While acknowledging the benefit of the child meeting his paternal grandparents, the court dismissed the motion, finding that the risks associated with the child's impulsive behaviours, the unfamiliar environment, and the unpredictable security situation in Egypt outweighed the benefits.

At the resumption of a family law trial, the husband brought a motion for an adjournment because he was in India and unable to retrieve his passport to travel to Canada.

The court granted the adjournment but noted significant non-compliance by both parties with a previous detailed trial management endorsement.

To ensure the trial proceeded in an orderly fashion and concluded within the available time, the court imposed strict time limits pursuant to Rule 1(7.2) of the Family Law Rules, allocating 35 hours to each party for all steps in the trial.

During an ongoing family law trial, the moving party brought a motion seeking payment of certain amounts from funds held in trust pursuant to earlier preservation orders.

The court considered whether the preservation order was made under s. 12 of the Family Law Act or was in the nature of a Mareva injunction.

Concluding that the order was properly characterized as a preservation order under s. 12 of the Family Law Act, the court determined that continuing to freeze all funds was no longer necessary to protect the responding party’s potential equalization claim.

The court ordered that $60,000 be released to the moving party from trust funds and directed payment of $750 to satisfy a Court of Appeal costs order.

Issues relating to credibility and other factual disputes were left for determination at trial.