Cara Senese

Following a five-day family law trial where the respondent was entirely successful, the respondent sought full indemnity costs of $340,000 based on multiple offers to settle.

The applicant failed to file responding costs submissions despite court reminders.

The court found the applicant took unreasonable positions and failed to comply with financial disclosure obligations.

However, considering negative findings regarding the respondent's historical income and the high rates charged by counsel, the court fixed costs at $250,000 payable by the applicant, enforceable as a support order.

The parties, who cohabited for 15 months and had one child, separated in January 2021.

The applicant sought sole decision-making, relocation, and significant child and spousal support, alleging the respondent earned $900,000 annually from drug dealing.

The court ordered joint decision-making and denied the relocation, imposing a 10km geographic restriction.

The court imputed a high income to the respondent for 2021 based on lavish spending but declined to impute illegal income prospectively, setting his 2022/2023 income at minimum wage.

The applicant's income was imputed significantly higher for 2022/2023 based on bank deposits.

Spousal support was awarded for 2021 only.

After crediting the respondent for condo carrying costs and support overpayments, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $54,472.88.

An appeal concerning the termination of child support for two adult children and a costs order.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in applying the material change in circumstances test under the Divorce Act, specifically by misplacing the onus of proof on the recipient parent to demonstrate the children's inability to withdraw from parental charge, and by failing to consider the parties' original contemplation of post-secondary education.

The court also identified an inconsistency between the motion judge's reasons and the final order regarding the termination of support for the second child.

The appeal was allowed, reinstating child support and setting aside the costs order.

The Respondent brought a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home, while the Applicant brought a cross-motion for spousal and child support and for the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion for the sale of the home, finding it was not in the children's best interests due to their special needs and the need for stability, and that the Respondent had no urgent need for the funds.

The Applicant's motion for spousal and child support was dismissed as the court found no evidentiary basis to impute income to the Respondent at the interim stage.

The Applicant's request for OCL involvement was granted to provide unbiased evidence regarding the children's best interests.

Following an eight-day family law trial where the respondent father was successful on the contested issues of decision-making and parenting time, the court determined the issue of costs.

The respondent sought over $200,000 in costs, relying on multiple settlement offers that were better than the trial outcome.

The applicant mother argued against a costs award, citing divided success and her inability to pay due to financial hardship and reliance on legal aid.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and fixed his reasonable costs at $150,000.

However, recognizing the applicant's inability to pay, the court applied a 50% discount, ordering the applicant to pay $75,000 in costs.

The applicant mother sought to change an existing shared parenting and joint decision-making regime, requesting primary residence and sole decision-making authority.

The mother argued that the father had historically been financially oppressive and that the children, particularly the 13-year-old, had expressed a preference to live primarily with her.

The court relied heavily on an Office of the Children's Lawyer report which recommended maintaining the status quo.

The court found that the children's hearsay statements via text message were not sufficiently reliable to establish a change in preference.

The court dismissed the mother's claims for primary residence and sole decision-making, maintaining the week-about shared parenting schedule and joint decision-making, while ordering counselling for the eldest child to ascertain her views and preferences going forward.

The parties returned to court to address temporary parenting arrangements and the appointment of a section 30 assessor.

The father and paternal grandparents sought expanded, in-person parenting time during the summer, while the mother opposed in-person visits and requested that the assessment be conducted entirely virtually.

The court found that virtual visits had been positive and ordered the mother to travel to Ottawa with the children for the summer to facilitate graduated in-person visits.

The court also appointed the father's proposed assessor, requiring in-person observation visits due to the complex family dynamics and allegations of domestic violence.

The parties, who previously shared week-about parenting of their four-year-old daughter, brought competing motions for temporary primary residence and school enrolment as the child was starting junior kindergarten.

The mother sought primary residence in Bowmanville, while the father sought primary residence in Scarborough.

Applying the best interests of the child factors under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court granted temporary primary residence to the mother in Bowmanville, noting she had been the more directly involved parent.

The court ordered a parenting schedule for the father including alternate weekends, one mid-week overnight, and shared holidays to maintain his close relationship with the child.

The father appealed a trial judge's order granting the maternal uncle monthly weekend access to the children following the mother's death.

The trial judge had awarded sole custody to the father but ordered that the uncle have access one weekend per month, including overnight visits.

The father argued the trial judge erred in finding that access would not occur without a court order, that the trial judge failed to provide sufficient reasons for disbelieving his evidence that he would voluntarily provide access, and that the trial judge failed to consider potential psychological harm to the father.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's decision was properly driven by the children's best interests and entitled to deference.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's divorce application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the applicant was not ordinarily resident in Ontario for the preceding year.

Alternatively, if jurisdiction was found, the respondent sought to amend her answer to include claims for setting aside a marriage contract, spousal support, and equalization, and argued for *forum non conveniens*.

The court found that the applicant was ordinarily resident in Ontario, establishing jurisdiction for the divorce.

However, applying the *forum non conveniens* factors, particularly the avoidance of a multiplicity of proceedings, the court determined that Florida was the clearly more appropriate forum, as the parties and their child resided there and related child-related issues were already being litigated in Florida.

The respondent's motion to dismiss the divorce application was granted.