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 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 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.

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.

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.

On an interim family law motion, the responding spouse sought partition and sale of a non‑matrimonial rental property, interim disbursements to retain an income valuation expert, imputation of income to the other spouse, and interim child and spousal support.

The court declined to order partition and sale on an interim motion, finding the issue better determined at trial given disputed equity and mortgage claims involving family members.

The court exercised its discretion under the Family Law Rules to order partial interim disbursements to fund an income analysis.

Applying s. 19(1) of the Child Support Guidelines, the court imputed limited income for certain employment benefits but rejected broader lifestyle‑based imputations tied to discretionary gifts from family or a family‑owned business.

Interim child support was ordered based on the adjusted income, with retroactive support, while determination of interim spousal support was deferred pending updated calculations.

Following a prior decision awarding costs to the applicant after success on a family law motion, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court emphasized that the respondent’s unreasonable conduct, including repeated failures to comply with disclosure orders, delay of proceedings, and misleading allegations, significantly increased litigation costs.

The court awarded costs on a full recovery basis and partially included preparation time related to a prior abandoned summary judgment motion that materially assisted the successful motion.

The court fixed legal fees and disbursements totaling $8,093.63 inclusive of HST, payable immediately by the respondent.

Following a 15.5‑year marriage, the respondent sought ongoing and retroactive spousal support after the payor spouse ceased voluntary payments several years post‑separation.

The court found entitlement to both compensatory and non‑compensatory support under the Divorce Act due to the recipient spouse’s economic disadvantage arising from childcare responsibilities, immigration challenges, and career interruption while the payor spouse advanced his technology career.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and considering the payor’s current income rather than averaging fluctuating earnings, the court ordered indefinite monthly support in the mid‑range of the guidelines.

Retroactive support was granted only from the date the claim for support was formally asserted, reflecting the significant delay in seeking relief.

The payor was also required to maintain life insurance to secure the support obligation.