Blishen

The parties, both veterinarians, separated after a 10.5-year marriage.

The trial addressed equalization of net family property, child support, and spousal support.

A major issue was the valuation and inclusion of the respondent's survivor interest in the applicant's pension, which the court ruled must be included in her net family property, resulting in a significant equalization payment owed to the applicant.

To satisfy this payment, the court ordered the transfer of the respondent's interest in the matrimonial home to the applicant.

The court also awarded the respondent retroactive and ongoing spousal support on compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, recognizing the economic disadvantage she suffered from the marriage breakdown.

The paternal grandmother brought a motion to be added as a party to a child protection proceeding involving her three grandchildren.

The children had recently been placed in her temporary care under a supervision order.

The mother opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that adding the grandmother as a party at this early stage would cause delay, unnecessarily complicate the proceedings, and escalate conflict, which was not in the children's best interests.

The court noted the grandmother could reapply if circumstances changed.

Following a 10-day trial regarding parenting time and a request for a permanent restraining order, both parties sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $37,000.

The court found that neither party was entirely successful, as the applicant did not obtain a restraining order or a no-parenting-time order, and the respondent did not obtain the parenting time recommended by the OCL.

Furthermore, the court determined that both parties behaved unreasonably during the litigation, negatively impacting the child.

Consequently, the court declined to award costs to either party.

The applicant, who was terminally ill with ALS, brought a motion to sever the divorce from corollary relief and grant an immediate divorce to maximize pension survivor benefits for his children.

The respondent agreed to the divorce but sought security for outstanding and future child support, as the applicant had cancelled his life insurance contrary to their separation agreement.

The court granted the severance and immediate divorce, finding that the pension survivor benefits constituted reasonable arrangements for child support.

The court also ordered the applicant to temporarily designate the respondent as the beneficiary of his supplementary death benefit in trust to secure any outstanding child support obligations.

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 father was successful on an urgent motion regarding the choice of school for the parties' daughter.

He sought full recovery costs of $9,519.12, while the respondent mother argued for minimal or no costs, submitting a bill of costs for $4,265.75.

The court found the father was the successful party and entitled to costs, but noted the mother's position was reasonable and she had made a formal offer to settle.

Considering the single issue, the time spent, and the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court awarded the father costs of $3,000 inclusive of HST.

The parties brought an urgent motion to determine the choice of school for their 12-year-old daughter entering Grade 7.

The moving party mother sought to enroll the child in a French Immersion program, while the responding party father sought enrollment in a homogeneous French school.

The child had attended a homogeneous French school for the past five years.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court considered factors including the benefits of French-only education, the child's academic success in her previous French school, and the importance of maintaining the status quo.

The court ordered that the child attend the homogeneous French school.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce interim without prejudice Minutes of Settlement requiring the respondent to pay spousal support of $1,697 per month.

The respondent had previously obtained a reduction to $776 per month on an interim basis due to a material change in circumstances arising from mental health issues and reduced working hours.

The court found sufficient medical evidence of a material change in circumstances, including a recent knee replacement surgery, to justify not enforcing the original settlement amount at this stage.

The motion was dismissed, and the reduced support order was continued pending further medical disclosure and a case conference.

The applicant mother brought an urgent interim mobility motion seeking to relocate with the parties' two young children from Ottawa to St. John's, Newfoundland.

The mother, a refugee claimant, sought the move to pursue an employment opportunity that would qualify her for a provincial immigration nominee program.

The respondent father opposed the move but did not propose a plan for the children to remain with him.

The court applied the best interests of the child test and the principles for interim mobility, finding that the mother had been the primary caregiver and had a concrete plan, whereas the father had exercised minimal access and presented no alternative plan.

The court granted the temporary relocation and ordered the father to pay child support.

The applicant mother brought a motion for a temporary order of sole custody and primary residence of the parties' two children, or alternatively a parenting assessment.

The respondent father sought joint custody or no order as to custody, maintaining the existing 2-2-3 shared parenting schedule.

The court noted the conflicting affidavit evidence and the challenges of making temporary custody orders without a full trial or assessment.

Finding no compelling reason to alter the status quo, the court made no order for custody, directed the 2-2-3 schedule to continue, and ordered a joint parenting assessment.

Temporary child and spousal support were also ordered on consent.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment in a status review application, seeking extended society care for three children and a supervision order for a fourth.

The respondent father had provided inconsistent evidence regarding whether the children identified as First Nations.

The court adjourned the motion, ordering the parties to provide further evidence clarifying the children's First Nations status and band identification, as this information is mandatory under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 before determining the appropriate disposition.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for extended society care and no access for the parents of a ten-month-old child.

The mother struggled with long-standing opiate addiction and had recently relapsed, while the father was incarcerated and had no relationship with the child.

The court granted summary judgment for extended society care and no access to the father, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial on those issues.

However, the court found a genuine issue existed regarding the mother's access and ordered a mini-trial to determine that issue.

The maternal grandparents of two Crown wards brought a motion for leave under s. 65.1(5) of the Child and Family Services Act to bring a status review application.

The children had been in care for over four years, and the children's aid society had recently identified an adoptive family and was preparing to place the children for adoption.

The court applied the five-part test for granting leave and found that the grandparents failed to demonstrate unusual circumstances or a prima facie case that a status review would result in the children being placed in their care.

The court emphasized the children's need for permanency and stability, and dismissed the motion for leave.

The respondent husband brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant wife's claims for equalization of net family property and spousal support, relying on a marriage contract signed in 2005.

The wife brought a cross-motion to dismiss the summary judgment motion and to determine the date of separation.

The court found that the marriage contract's property releases were ambiguous and did not constitute an absolute bar to equalization, creating a genuine issue for trial.

Regarding spousal support, the court applied the Miglin framework and found that the wife's catastrophic and unforeseeable health and financial changes since the marriage contract was signed created a genuine issue for trial as to whether the agreement still met the objectives of the Divorce Act.

The court also found a genuine issue for trial regarding the date of separation due to conflicting evidence requiring credibility assessments.

The husband's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The parties, who separated in 2013, sought sole custody of their two children following a breakdown in their shared parenting arrangement.

The trial focused heavily on the parents' inability to communicate and their divergent approaches to their nine-year-old child's gender non-conformity.

The mother supported the child's social transition, while the father believed the gender non-conformity was manufactured by the mother.

The court found the parents' extreme lack of trust and conflict compromised their parenting abilities and precluded joint custody.

Sole decision-making and primary residence were awarded to the mother, with the father receiving alternating weekend access.

The court specifically ordered that decisions regarding the child's gender non-conformity must follow the recommendations of the CHEO Gender Diversity Clinic.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including fraud over $5,000, conspiracy, and fraudulent use of credit card data, arising from a series of transactions at Home Depot stores.

The accused and another individual used a credit card and an illegitimate authorization code to force post transactions, resulting in a loss to the merchant.

The accused claimed he was merely an employee and unaware of the fraud.

The court rejected his testimony, finding him wilfully blind and actively engaged in aiding the fraud.

The accused was found guilty of aiding fraud under $5,000, fraudulent use of a computer password, fraudulent use of credit card data, and possession of property obtained by crime under $5,000, but acquitted of conspiracy.

The Society brought a protection application regarding a 20-month-old child who suffered inadequately explained severe bruising while in the rotating care of her parents.

The child was apprehended and placed with the step-father's parents.

The mother and step-father complied with all Society recommendations and sought custody.

The father, who struggled with untreated ADHD, chronic pain, and marijuana use, sought sole custody but remained uncooperative with the Society and hyper-vigilant about minor injuries to the child.

The court found the child in need of protection and ordered custody to the mother and step-father, with supervised access to the father conditional on his compliance with treatment and parenting recommendations.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault following a brutal beating of the victim with a pipe.

While the accused admitted to an initial simple assault, he denied involvement in the subsequent pipe attack.

The court analyzed text message evidence and the doctrine of common intention under section 21(2) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the accused formed a common intention with others to assault the victim and that bodily harm was an objectively foreseeable consequence, rendering him guilty as a party to the aggravated assault.

Following a family law trial where both parties were self-represented, the applicant sought costs of $85,000 while the respondent proposed paying $4,833.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party and had behaved reasonably, whereas the respondent's behavior was unreasonable.

Applying the test from Fong v. Chan, the court determined the applicant was entitled to a moderate allowance for the opportunity cost of her time spent preparing for and conducting the trial.

The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $20,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The parties separated after a seven-and-a-half-year marriage and shared custody of their two children.

The respondent sought retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, arguing that income should be imputed to the applicant, a medical specialist, due to intentional underemployment and unreasonable corporate expense deductions.

The court imputed income to the applicant based on her full-time earning capacity and adjusted her corporate expenses.

The court dismissed the respondent's claims for retroactive child support and spousal support, but ordered the applicant to pay ongoing child support based on the set-off amount under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.