Barry T. Paquette

The Respondent (mother) brought a motion seeking partition and sale of a jointly owned property, with proceeds to pay off a mortgage on another property solely owned by her, which the Applicant (father) had guaranteed.

The father opposed the sale and the use of proceeds to pay the mortgage.

The court granted the partition and sale of the jointly owned property, finding the mother had a prima facie right and the father failed to show sufficient reason to refuse the sale.

The court ordered the proceeds to first pay off the collateral mortgage on the mother's property, and then the remaining funds to be disbursed equally between the parties.

The mother's requests for sole carriage, dispensing with the father's consent, and exclusive possession were denied as premature or unsupported by evidence.

Child support was resolved by consent.

The applicant brought a motion for a refraining order against the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) to prevent the suspension of his passport and driver's license, and for an order temporarily terminating his spousal and child support obligations.

The court dismissed the motion for a refraining order, finding the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case or clean hands, as he had unilaterally reduced and stopped support payments.

The court also dismissed the motion to temporarily terminate support, finding no urgency and a lack of clean hands under the Berta test.

The respondent sought to retroactively vary child support and claim an overpayment due to a material change in circumstances (disability).

The court found no effective notice of the change prior to the formal motion.

Despite the agreed material change, the court exercised its discretion under the Colucci and D.B.S. factors, denying the retroactive reduction and repayment due to the respondent's blameworthy conduct, lack of disclosure, and the hardship it would cause the children and recipient.

The existing child support order was varied prospectively as agreed by the parties.

The parties separated in 2018 and engaged in a high-conflict dispute over parenting their six-year-old child.

The mother repeatedly made unilateral decisions, refused to participate in a Children's Lawyer investigation, and relocated with the child to Etobicoke shortly before trial in breach of a prior court order.

The court found the mother's conduct demonstrated a complete disregard for the child's right to a relationship with the father.

The father was awarded sole decision-making responsibility, except for religion, and the mother was ordered to return the child to the Region of Waterloo immediately.

An equal shared parenting schedule was ordered to commence once the mother returns to the region.

The mother brought a motion to set aside a temporary order granted in her absence, which had directed police enforcement of parenting time, prohibited her husband from attending exchanges, and requested an Office of the Children's Lawyer investigation.

The mother argued she received inadequate notice of the hearing.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the mother had adequate notice but failed to monitor her email, provided no explanation for a one-year delay in pursuing the motion, and presented no arguable defence on the merits to the original order.

The respondent brought a motion alleging a binding settlement for the purchase of the applicant's interest in their jointly owned home, based on pre-litigation counsel correspondence.

The court examined whether such correspondence could constitute a domestic contract under s. 55(1) of the Family Law Act.

The court concluded that pre-litigation correspondence cannot form a binding domestic contract due to the strict statutory requirements of writing, signatures, and witnessing, and the distinction between pre-litigation negotiation and active litigation settlements.

The motion was dismissed, and the court found as a fact the value of the applicant's equity interest in the property at separation.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce a settlement allegedly reached between the parties following a settlement conference.

The court reviewed the correspondence and draft minutes of settlement exchanged between counsel.

The court found that the parties were not ad idem on an essential term, specifically the timing of the issuance of the divorce order relative to the transfer of the matrimonial home.

As a result, the court concluded that no binding settlement was reached and dismissed the motion, deeming the applicant's signed draft minutes as an offer to settle.

Following a family law trial, the applicant mother sought costs of $92,297.84 on a full indemnity basis, arguing the respondent father acted in bad faith and unreasonably.

The court found divided success on most issues except child support, where the mother was wholly successful.

While the court did not find the father acted in bad faith, it concluded he behaved unreasonably by continually denying family violence, which lengthened the trial.

The court ordered the father to pay $45,000 in costs, with $18,459.57 designated as enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The parties made written submissions regarding the costs of the respondent's successful motion to set aside a default order.

The applicant sought costs of the motion on a partial indemnity basis, arguing that the respondent's default necessitated the motion.

The respondent argued no costs should be awarded or they should be in the cause.

The court found the applicant acted reasonably throughout and that setting aside the default order was an indulgence to the respondent.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the motion fixed at $3,911.28.

The moving party brought a motion to set aside a default order for the sale of a residence, which was granted after she failed to file an Answer.

The moving party's counsel explained that a deadline letter was inadvertently missed.

The court applied the test for setting aside an order obtained without notice, finding that the moving party moved promptly, had a plausible excuse for the default, and raised an arguable defence regarding the validity of a trust agreement.

The default order was set aside, and the moving party was permitted to file an Answer, subject to paying costs thrown away.

The applicant mother and respondent father sought a final determination on the parenting schedule and child support for their five-year-old son.

The mother sought primary care and a restricted schedule for the father due to a history of severe domestic violence, for which the father had been criminally convicted.

The father sought equal parenting time, arguing he was a capable parent and the mother was alienating him.

The court found that the father had committed family violence, lacked insight into its impact, and harboured ongoing animosity towards the mother, making an equal parenting schedule contrary to the child's best interests.

The court ordered the mother's proposed parenting schedule, alternating Easter weekends, and imputed income to the father for the purpose of calculating ongoing child support.

The applicant father brought a motion to change an interim consent order to substantially expand his parenting time and add a police enforcement clause.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking minor adjustments and payment of outstanding childcare costs.

The court found no material change in circumstances since the interim order was made, noting that the conflict, lateness, and police involvement existed prior to the consent order.

The court emphasized that interim orders should only be varied in compelling or exceptional circumstances.

Both the father's motion to change parenting time and the mother's cross-motion were dismissed, with financial issues adjourned to trial.

The court determined costs following a seven-day family law trial concerning custody, parenting, and child support.

The Mother was found to be substantially successful at trial and acted reasonably, making multiple settlement offers.

The Father made only one offer, close to trial, and was unsuccessful on his main claims.

The Mother was awarded $45,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The Father's request for costs related to a resolved medical records motion was denied, as there was no compelling reason to award costs for a settled matter.

Of the total costs, $4,500 (10%) was deemed enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office, reflecting the proportion of time spent on child support issues.

The Applicant sought joint custody and a 50/50 parenting schedule, with no child support.

The Respondent sought sole custody and primary residence, with guideline child support.

The court found that the parties were unable to communicate effectively for the children's best interests, citing the Applicant's anger issues, substance abuse, and controlling behaviour.

The court granted the Respondent sole custody and maintained the existing parenting schedule, which did not meet the 40% threshold for shared custody.

The Applicant was ordered to pay guideline child support of $650 per month and a proportionate share of s. 7 expenses.

The applicant father sought an urgent order for access to his two minor children amidst the COVID-19 court suspension.

The respondent mother opposed, citing the father's lack of prior parenting time since separation, alleged abuse, and the children's fear.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, determined the matter was not urgent, noting the father's delay in bringing the motion, the absence of immediate safety or well-being concerns, the children's ages, and the involvement of Family and Children’s Services recommending supervised access.

The motion was adjourned to a case conference after regular court operations resume.

An appeal concerning the division of proceeds from the sale of a family residence held as joint tenants by parties in a common law relationship.

The appellant contributed $5,000 to the purchase price while the respondent contributed $116,000.

The trial judge found that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of resulting trust and that there was no unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no basis to interfere with the findings regarding the presumption of resulting trust and the unjust enrichment analysis.

Following a successful trial regarding resulting trust and unjust enrichment of a family residence, the applicant sought costs.

The applicant had delivered an offer to settle that triggered the cost consequences of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court awarded the applicant the full requested amount of $36,556.92, finding the time spent reasonable and noting no reason to discount the fees.

The applicant provided sperm to the respondent and her same-sex partner to conceive a child, with an oral understanding that the applicant would parent the child.

After conception, the respondent and her partner decided to keep the child.

The applicant sought a declaration of sole parentage and sole custody.

The court found the oral agreement did not meet the strict requirements for a valid surrogacy agreement under the newly amended Children's Law Reform Act.

However, using its parens patriae jurisdiction, the court declared the applicant, the respondent, and the respondent's partner to all be legal parents of the child.

The court awarded sole custody to the respondent with a shared parenting schedule, and ordered the child's name to include names chosen by both the applicant and the respondent.

Following a motion for interim child and spousal support, the parties were unable to settle the issue of costs and provided written submissions.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $12,096.93, while the respondent sought costs of $11,053.21.

The court found the applicant to be the successful party as she had to bring the motion to obtain support, which the respondent had not paid voluntarily.

However, the court reduced the applicant's fee claim by 30 percent because the respondent prevailed on several issues, including the income determination basis and retroactivity.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of $8,494.96.

The court determined costs following a motion where the respondent was substantially more successful than the applicant.

The applicant's monetary claims and request for the respondent to pass accounts were dismissed, as the applicant had no interest in the estate.

The court fixed costs at $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable by the applicant to the respondent.