Beverley Johnston

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 20(5) of the Family Law Rules seeking an order to question Dr. Brad Booth, a psychiatrist retained by the respondent, for a maximum of five hours prior to trial.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the applicant had not met the statutory test.

The court found that all three prongs of the Rule 20(5) test were satisfied: it would be unfair to proceed without questioning; the information was not easily available by other means; and the questioning would not cause unacceptable delay or undue expense.

The court granted the motion, permitting five hours of questioning on August 18, 2025, and awarded costs to the applicant.

This motion to change concerned the applicant mother's request to relocate the children of the marriage from Ontario to Hohenfels, Germany, due to her new partner's military posting.

The respondent father opposed the relocation, arguing it would negatively impact his parenting time, communication with the children, their relationships with paternal relatives, and that the eldest child did not wish to move and felt unsafe.

Applying sections 16(2), 16(3), 16.92(1), and 16.93(2) of the Divorce Act, the court found that the respondent had not met his burden of proving the relocation was not in the children's best interests.

The court determined the mother's relocation plan was reasonable, her historical caregiving role was strong, and the father's concerns regarding parenting time, communication, and safety were not substantiated or could be mitigated.

The court also weighed the children's views, noting the eldest child's views might be influenced by parental conflict.

The relocation was granted.

The respondent father brought a contempt motion against the applicant mother, alleging non-compliance with a final parenting order.

The mother argued that the motion should not proceed because the final order contained a mandatory dispute resolution clause requiring mediation/arbitration.

The court held that while it retains exclusive jurisdiction over contempt, contempt is a discretionary remedy of last resort.

The court declined to pass directly to a contempt finding and ordered the parties to proceed to mediation/arbitration as required by their final order, adjourning the contempt motion sine die.

The defendant brought a motion to consolidate a civil action with a family court application.

The civil action involved a dispute over whether a $250,000 transfer of funds from the plaintiff to the defendant was a loan or a gift, while the family court application involved the enforcement of a separation agreement and equalization of net family property.

The court applied the factors for consolidation under Rule 6.01 and found that while there were common questions of fact, the balance of convenience favored allowing the civil action to proceed to a summary trial independently.

The motion to consolidate was dismissed.

The court addressed the non-payment of spousal support arrears amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent had purchased a bank draft but lost it, causing a delay in payment.

Considering the operational suspensions of the court and the respondent's age, the court ordered the respondent to replace the draft by April 7, 2020, and ensure its delivery to the applicant's counsel, provided it was safe to do so.

Counsel were also directed to provide an update by April 9, 2020.

The applicant mother previously moved for a stay of an interim custody and access order, which was dismissed.

The respondent father sought his costs of the stay motion on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $3,318.46.

The applicant argued for no costs due to divided success, or alternatively $1,000.

The court found no grounds for substantial indemnity costs, as the alleged unreasonable conduct occurred post-motion.

The court rejected the applicant's argument of divided success, finding the respondent was substantially successful.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs fixed at $2,433.53.

The applicant mother sought a stay of an interim order granting the respondent father joint custody and gradually increasing access to their four-year-old child, pending her motion for leave to appeal.

The mother alleged the father was violent and abusive, and that the child was suffering emotional harm from the access attempts.

The court found the mother failed to demonstrate a risk of irreparable harm to the child and that the balance of convenience favoured denying the stay to prevent the extinguishment of the father-child relationship.

The motion for a stay was dismissed, but the court ordered that the maternal grandparents supervise the initial access visits to facilitate a smoother transition.

The applicant mother moved for an extension of time to serve and file her notice of motion for leave to appeal an interim access order, and requested that the motion for leave be heard orally by a single judge.

The court granted the extension of time, finding the mother had a bona fide intention to appeal and a reasonable explanation for the short delay.

However, the court dismissed the request for an oral hearing before a single judge, holding that Rule 62.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure mandatorily requires leave motions to be heard in writing by a panel of the Divisional Court.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the respondent father for the procedural issue.

The moving party husband brought a motion to change to terminate his spousal support obligation to the responding party wife.

The parties were married for 15 years with no children, and the husband had paid support for 11 years.

The court found that the husband had fully met his support obligation, noting the wife's failure to promptly seek full-time employment post-separation and her poor financial management.

The motion was granted, and spousal support was terminated.

The respondent brought a motion while having an outstanding costs order of approximately $8,000 from a previous appearance.

The applicant argued that the respondent's failure to pay the costs order should bar his current motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that the respondent had the financial means to pay the order but chose not to do so.

Applying the three-step test for non-compliance, the court declined to exercise its discretion to exempt the respondent from sanctions.

The respondent's motion was dismissed without prejudice to his right to return the motion for hearing upon payment of the outstanding costs.

Following a focused hearing where the applicant mother was successful on the issues of school choice and the interim parenting schedule, the court determined the issue of costs.

The mother sought costs on a partial indemnity basis prior to her offer to settle and full indemnity thereafter.

The court found the mother's offer to settle was substantially similar to the final order and awarded her partial indemnity costs prior to the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court also applied the principle that costs for a settlement conference cannot be awarded if the endorsement is silent on costs.

The father was ordered to pay total costs of $34,968.42.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, interim disbursements for expert fees, and financial disclosure.

The parties were married for 40 years but maintained separate finances, with the respondent acquiring significant wealth through inheritance late in the marriage.

The court dismissed the claims for interim spousal support, finding no prima facie case for entitlement given the lack of financial dependency.

The court also dismissed the request for the immediate sale of the home and interim disbursements, but granted a limited order for financial disclosure.

The parties disputed the school choice and interim parenting schedule for their 12-year-old son.

The applicant mother sought to maintain the status quo parenting schedule and enroll the child in a high school near her home.

The respondent father sought an equal parenting schedule and to enroll the child in a high school near his home.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer advocated for the child's stated preference for equal time and the father's school choice.

The court found the father had inappropriately influenced the child's views and that the mother had been the primary parent.

The court ordered the child to attend the mother's choice of school and maintained the status quo parenting schedule, finding it in the child's best interests.

The respondent was successful on her motion for temporary spousal support and the sale of the matrimonial home.

She had previously made a settlement offer to accept a lower amount of support.

The applicant had unwisely withheld support to leverage increased access, which was delayed pending an OCL report.

The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $5,000 for fees plus HST and $300 for disbursements.

The father, who had been restricted to supervised access since 2013 due to criminal charges and allegations by the mother, was acquitted.

During the ongoing family trial, the court delivered immediate oral reasons terminating the supervised access regime.

The court found that the mother failed to rebut the presumption of maximum contact and that the father had demonstrated consistent, loving parenting.

The court ordered joint custody with primary care to the mother, immediate transition to unsupervised access, and reunification counselling for the father and child.

In a family law proceeding, both parties brought motions for further production and disclosure.

The respondent wife sought extensive disclosure and valuation of the applicant husband's family's businesses and a family trust, as well as oral discovery of non-parties.

The court dismissed the requests for corporate and trust valuations for equalization purposes, finding the husband had no ownership interest.

Applying the proportionality principle, the court limited disclosure for income determination purposes to records of personal expenses paid by the business or the husband's parents, and quashed the summonses to non-parties.

The wife was also ordered to produce certain bank statements and records of sold jewelry.

In a family law proceeding, both parties brought motions for further production and disclosure.

The respondent wife sought extensive corporate and trust records, as well as the examination of non-parties, to value the husband's family business and determine his income for support purposes.

The court dismissed the request for corporate valuation disclosure, finding the husband had no ownership interest in the business and his interest in a family trust was nil.

The court partially granted disclosure regarding the husband's income, ordering production of credit card statements and particulars of personal expenses paid by the company or his father.

The request to examine non-parties was dismissed as disproportionate, and the summonses were quashed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a temporary disclosure order requiring production of bank and credit card statements dating back several years.

The disclosure had been ordered at a settlement conference in a family law proceeding involving a significant claim for retroactive child support and a dispute regarding the appropriate amount of support under s. 4(b) of the Child Support Guidelines.

The court held that the financial disclosure was relevant to issues including the moving party’s ability to pay retroactive support, alleged blameworthy spending conduct, and whether the table amount of support was inappropriate.

The court further held that the judge had authority under the Family Law Rules to make the disclosure order at the settlement conference.

Leave to appeal was denied and the motion dismissed.

On a motion for interim spousal support, the court determined the quantum of support and whether the applicant husband should receive credit for paying the respondent wife's car insurance.

The court granted the husband credit for the car insurance payments made in 2013 and 2014.

Regarding spousal support, the court rejected the wife's request for the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range, noting she was not working or going to school despite having a full-time nanny and shared custody.

The court ordered interim spousal support at the mid-range of $4,211 per month.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a final order fixing ongoing child support and section 7 expenses and determining arrears pursuant to a prior order governing annual recalculation of support.

The respondent agreed with certain expense amounts but argued his income had changed and effectively sought to alter the mechanism used to calculate support.

The court held that, absent a proper motion to vary and proof of a material change in circumstances, the court would not vary the existing support order.

The respondent remained bound by the terms of the earlier order.

Child support and proportional section 7 expense payments were fixed based on the respondent’s 2013 income.