Carol A. Allen

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of McGee J. dated March 6, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding parties did not provide a costs outline.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 all-inclusive to the responding parties.

The court granted summary judgment in a child protection proceeding, finding the child, T.O., in need of protection and placing her in the deemed custody of her father, J.O., with supervised access to her mother, B.R. The decision reviews the history of parental conflict, the mother’s mental health and repeated unfounded allegations of sexual abuse, and the father’s progress in addressing his own issues.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and concluded that the mother’s lack of insight and continued behaviour posed ongoing risk to the child.

The former spouse of the bankrupt brought a motion for a declaration lifting the automatic stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to continue family law litigation.

The court found that the former spouse was not a creditor in the bankruptcy proceeding, as anticipated costs awards would be offset against equalization payments.

Therefore, the stay of proceedings did not apply.

The court granted a declaration that the stay does not apply to the family law proceeding, allowing the uncontested trial to proceed.

This appeal concerned an order striking the appellant's pleadings in a family law application due to repeated non-compliance with financial disclosure orders.

The appellant argued the motion judge misinterpreted his position, failed to consider alternative remedies, and did not account for his personal circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the fundamental duty of financial disclosure in family law and finding that, given the appellant's persistent failure to comply, striking the pleadings was an appropriate and necessary remedy under the Family Law Rules.

The respondent brought a motion to strike the applicant's pleadings and proceed to an uncontested trial due to the applicant's breach of multiple disclosure orders.

The self-represented applicant did not oppose the motion, stating he could not afford counsel or adequately represent himself.

The court struck the applicant's pleadings, granted the respondent leave to proceed to an uncontested trial, and awarded the respondent $5,000 in costs to be deducted from any future equalization payment owed to the applicant.

Following a trial to determine the value of the matrimonial home, the court assessed costs.

The applicant contended the home was worth $260,000, while the respondent valued it at $414,000.

The court determined the value to be $392,000, making the respondent the successful party.

As the applicant failed to beat the respondent's offers to settle and the respondent did not better her own offer, the court awarded the respondent costs representing 75 percent of her legal fees, totaling $14,682.25.

The parties disputed the value of their matrimonial home as of the valuation date.

The applicant's expert appraised the home at $260,000 using local comparables, while the respondent's expert appraised it at $414,000 using comparables from a wider geographic area and making adjustments.

The court preferred the methodology of the respondent's expert but applied a 20 percent discount to the adjustments to account for the subjectivity of appraisals, ultimately valuing the home at $392,000.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking to increase his parenting time with the parties' three children to an equally shared schedule.

The respondent mother opposed, advocating for the continuation of the existing alternate weekend schedule.

The court, applying the recently amended Divorce Act, found it was in the children's best interests to allocate parenting time on a "week-about" shared schedule.

The decision emphasized that a status quo unilaterally imposed by one parent is not a strict presumption and gave significant weight to the Office of the Children's Lawyer report and the children's expressed wishes.

The unmarried parents of a five-year-old child both sought sole custody and primary residency following a high-conflict separation.

The mother had been the de facto custodial parent since separation.

The court found that the parents' inability to communicate necessitated a sole custody order.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court granted the mother sole custody and primary residency, noting her role as the primary caregiver and her sound judgment regarding the child's care.

The father was granted regular access and ordered to pay child support.

Following a family law trial regarding a motion to change support, the successful applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The respondent, who was self-represented and had health issues, caused significant delays and unnecessary prolongation of the trial.

The court found that substantial indemnity costs were justified due to the respondent's conduct, but tempered the award to a mid-way point between partial and substantial indemnity due to her health and financial circumstances.

The applicant was awarded $35,000 in costs.

This costs endorsement followed a six-day trial concerning custody and access, where the respondent, Jessica Mary Baran, was largely successful in maintaining the status quo of alternating weekend and mid-week access and securing sole custody.

The court found the applicant's position on shared week-about custody unreasonable, which prolonged the trial.

Despite offers made by both parties not being fully bettered in all aspects, the court determined that the applicant should pay costs somewhat greater than partial indemnity due to his unreasonable stance on custody and access.

The respondent was awarded costs totaling $28,251 plus applicable HST.

The court determined custody and access for the parties' child, Bodhi.

The applicant sought joint custody with alternating weeks, while the respondent sought sole custody with the existing access schedule.

The court considered the applicant's history of domestic abuse and poor judgment regarding the child's health and exposure to an unregulated "Mars unit" treatment.

The respondent was found to be a caring, competent, and diligent parent.

The court granted sole custody and primary care to the respondent, with an adjusted access schedule for the applicant, and prohibited the applicant from using the "Mars unit" on the child.

The parties separated after a long relationship and marriage.

The applicant sought a 50% interest in the matrimonial home, which was solely in the respondent's name, equalization of net family property, occupation rent, child support, and spousal support.

The court found the applicant had a 50% interest in the home by way of a resulting trust, as it was purchased with funds from a joint account.

The court ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment, occupation rent, and imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes because he voluntarily took a promotion that reduced his income.

The court also awarded spousal support of $1.00 per month and resolved arrears for child support and section 7 expenses.

This trial decision addresses financial issues arising from a marital breakdown, including equalization of net family properties, child support, spousal support, and retroactive support claims.

While custody was resolved, the court determined the equalization payment owed by the husband to the wife, established the parties' qualifying incomes for support purposes, and assessed the wife's entitlement to spousal support, including whether income should be imputed to her.

The court largely dismissed the wife's substantial claim for retroactive spousal support due to the payor's financial hardship and the claimant's insufficient efforts towards self-sufficiency, but awarded adjusted retroactive child support based on the payor's actual income.

The applicant sought the return of her two-year-old son, Flynn, from the respondent under the Hague Convention, after the respondent removed the child from Denmark to Ontario without the applicant's consent.

The respondent relied on a "parenting plan" agreement, signed prior to their move to Denmark, which purported to grant him full custody and allow him to leave Denmark with the child.

The court found the agreement invalid as a cohabitation agreement dealing with custody, contrary to the Family Law Act, and also found it was signed under duress due to the applicant's desperate financial and career circumstances.

The court further ruled that the agreement could not displace the factual determination of habitual residence under the Hague Convention.

Based on the parties' settled intention to reside in Denmark for the applicant's two-year employment contract, the respondent's actions to establish EU residency, and the family's routine in Denmark, the court determined that Flynn's habitual residence was Denmark.

Consequently, the child's removal was wrongful, and an order was issued for Flynn's forthwith return to Denmark.

The respondent, David Thomas McCombe, brought a motion seeking an order compelling the applicant, Laura Marie McCombe, to annually sign documentation for tax purposes regarding spousal support, child support, and Section 7 contributions.

The court granted the request for acknowledgements of spousal support, child support, and Section 7 expenses, including copies of receipts, with the caveat that the applicant should not incur out-of-pocket costs.

The motion was denied regarding documentation for fitness and medical expenses for the children, as the existing Final Order was deemed sufficient and the proposed wording was inappropriate.

In this family costs endorsement following dismissal of a motion for leave to appeal a temporary custody order, the court held that costs were governed by the Family Law Rules rather than Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The successful responding party was presumptively entitled to costs, and substantial indemnity was rejected in favour of partial indemnity.

Applying the fairness and reasonableness principles governing costs, the court fixed all-inclusive costs at $5,000.

The request that costs be payable in the cause was denied because there was no legitimate reason to postpone payment.

The respondent mother sought leave to appeal a temporary custody order granting the father temporary custody and specified access.

The motion judge considered the test under r. 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure requiring either a conflicting decision or good reason to doubt the correctness of the order coupled with issues of broader importance.

The court found no conflict with existing jurisprudence concerning maintaining the status quo in interim custody matters and concluded the motion judge properly applied the best interests of the child test under the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The court held the decision to alter the status quo was supported by compelling reasons related to the mother’s conduct in obtaining ex parte relief in another jurisdiction.

Leave to appeal was refused.

The parties separated after a 16-year marriage.

The respondent was originally ordered to pay $800 per month in spousal support, an amount reduced due to high child support obligations.

After the children became adults, the respondent successfully moved to terminate child support, and the motion judge continued spousal support at $800 per month.

The appellant appealed, seeking an increase.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in assessing the appellant's need, denying compensatory support, and failing to apply the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Spousal support was increased to $2,720 per month.