Carolyn J. Horkins

A non-party brought a motion to be added as a respondent or, alternatively, to be granted leave to intervene in a family law application concerning parenting time and decision-making authority for a child.

The non-party is the biological father of the respondent's older child and has developed a close relationship with the subject child through his co-parenting arrangement with the respondent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the non-party did not meet the statutory criteria under the Children's Law Reform Act or the procedural requirements under the Family Law Rules for being added as a party or for intervention.

The court held that the non-party had no legal interest in the application and that his presence was not necessary to determine the issues between the applicant and respondent.

The applicant, Miguel Angel Delgado Sanchez, brought an application seeking a declaration of interest in the former matrimonial home, nullification of a 2003 title transfer to the respondent, Nora Belen Tello-Sotomarino, and other relief, alleging concealed fraud.

The respondent brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss these claims as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and the Real Property Limitation Act.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the applicant's inconsistent evidence regarding the alleged fraud and his admission that his signature on the transfer documents was genuine.

The court concluded there was no factual foundation for concealed fraud to trigger an extension of the limitation period.

The applicant's claims were dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant father sought increased parenting time for their child, proposing a 2-2-3 schedule, following his relocation to Windsor to be closer to the child.

The respondent mother opposed this, seeking less parenting time for the father and a Section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act, citing concerns about the father's conduct and alleged physical discipline.

The court dismissed the mother's request for a Section 30 assessment, finding it unnecessary, and granted the father's request for a 2-2-3 parenting schedule, emphasizing the child's best interests, including the child's expressed wish for equal time with both parents and the need to reduce parental conflict.

The respondent father was successful on a motion to suspend the maternal grandparents' visits with his medically fragile child and sought costs of $4,339 on a partial indemnity basis.

The maternal grandparents did not file costs submissions.

The court found the father acted reasonably and the motion was necessary due to the grandparents' egregious behaviour.

The court awarded the father his requested costs of $4,339, finding the amount reasonable and proportionate.

Following a successful application under the Hague Convention for the return of a wrongfully removed child, the applicant sought full recovery costs and expenses.

The respondent had failed to comply with the court's return order and disappeared with the child in France.

The court found the respondent's conduct to be in bad faith and unreasonable.

The applicant was awarded full recovery costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and necessary expenses under Article 26 of the Hague Convention, totaling $40,413.

The moving party father sought to set aside a final order made at an undefended trial pursuant to Family Law Rule 25(19)(e).

The underlying order granted the responding party mother sole decision-making responsibility, child support based on imputed income, and an equalization payment.

The court applied the five-factor test for setting aside a default judgment.

The court found the father's delay in bringing the motion concerning, his explanation for default implausible, and that he failed to raise an arguable defence on the merits regarding equalization or imputed income.

The motion was dismissed, though the father was granted leave to file an Answer solely regarding parenting time.

The applicant father brought a motion under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for the return of the child to France, alleging wrongful removal by the respondent mother.

The mother argued the child was habitually resident in Canada and that returning the child to France posed a grave risk of harm.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in France immediately prior to the removal and that the mother's evidence did not meet the high threshold for the grave risk exception under Article 13(b).

The court ordered the child's forthwith return to France.

The applicant father sought to review and terminate spousal support and adjust child support pursuant to a 2012 Separation Agreement.

The respondent mother sought a retroactive increase in support to 2013, alleging the father hid income from the sale of his business.

The court found no blameworthy conduct by the father and denied the retroactive claim due to the mother's failure to give effective notice.

The court imputed $390,000 in annual income to the mother, finding she was intentionally underemployed and failed to utilize her substantial investment portfolio to generate income, despite her obligations under the Separation Agreement.

Spousal support was ordered to terminate after one additional year, and child support was adjusted prospectively based on the parties' current incomes.

Following a successful trial where the applicant mother was permitted to relocate to Israel with the child, she sought full recovery costs of $32,945.15.

The respondent father did not respond to the costs request.

The court found that the father's conduct throughout the proceedings, which included ignoring court orders, being unprepared, and exhibiting abusive behaviour during the trial, was wholly unreasonable and rose to the level of bad faith.

The court awarded the mother full recovery costs in the requested amount.

The father sought costs of $11,000 on a full recovery basis following a successful motion where the mother was ordered to post security for costs.

The mother, who was self-represented, argued she was impecunious and sought to pause or minimize costs.

The court found the mother engaged in unreasonable, excessive, and abusive litigation conduct, but stopped short of finding bad faith.

The court fixed costs at $7,000.

The court declined to order the costs enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office or set off against child support, instead ordering that failure to pay would allow the father to bring a motion to dismiss her appeal.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to declare the appellant mother a vexatious litigant, dismiss her appeal, or alternatively, order her to post security for costs.

The mother was appealing a final order regarding child support and had a history of filing voluminous materials and failing to pay past costs orders.

The court declined to declare her a vexatious litigant, noting that such an order should be considered by the Ontario Court of Justice where the dispute originated.

However, finding good reason to believe the appeal was a waste of time and an abuse of process, the court ordered the mother to post $24,436.63 as security for costs before proceeding with the appeal.

The applicant mother sought to vary a final parenting order to require the respondent father's parenting time be supervised and to permit her to relocate with the child to Israel.

The father had a long history of abusive, threatening, and uncontrollable behaviour, which led to child protection proceedings and the suspension of his unsupervised access.

The court found that the father's conduct caused emotional harm to the child and that he refused to comply with court orders, including a mandated mental health assessment.

The court granted the mother's request to relocate to Israel, finding it in the child's best interests to be shielded from the father's harmful conduct, and ordered that the father's parenting time be strictly supervised.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the pleadings of her former husband and his mother for failing to comply with multiple court orders requiring financial disclosure.

The husband had repeatedly failed to provide valuations of his business interests and income reports over a period of nine years, offering various excuses related to his retained professionals and the pandemic.

The court found the husband's non-compliance to be exceptional and egregious, striking his Answer and allowing the applicant to proceed to an uncontested trial.

The mother-in-law's disclosure was also found deficient, but the court granted her one final opportunity to comply before her pleadings could be struck.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final joint parenting order, seeking sole custody and decision-making authority due to the respondent father's failure to communicate regarding his housing instability and refusal to accommodate schedule changes.

The court found that while the father's communication lapses were problematic, they did not meet the threshold of a material change in circumstances under Gordon v. Goertz.

The request for sole custody was dismissed.

However, the court granted variations to the parenting schedule, including a week-about summer schedule to assist the mother with daycare costs, and finalized consent variations regarding the regular schedule and child/spousal support.

The applicant mother brought a motion to stay or consolidate a civil action commenced by her father-in-law with her family law application.

The father-in-law had advanced $1 million for the purchase of the matrimonial home, which the mother claimed was a gift and the father-in-law claimed was a loan.

The father-in-law commenced a civil action for possession of the home, while the mother sought exclusive possession and equalization in the family proceeding.

The court found that the central issue of whether the advance was a gift or a loan was common to both proceedings and ordered that the civil action be heard together with the family application to avoid inconsistent findings and save time and expense.

The applicant father brought a motion to change the child's surname to a hyphenated name, arguing a material change in circumstances due to increased access and bonding.

The respondent mother, who has sole custody, brought a cross-motion to enforce a prior consent order regarding section 7 expenses, life insurance, and RESP contributions.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding that under the Change of Name Act, only a person with lawful custody can apply for a name change, and the father had not sought to vary the custody order under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court granted the mother's enforcement motion, ordering the father to authorize direct dental claims, pay his share of guitar lessons, provide proof of life insurance, and deposit $10,000 into the mother's RESP for the child.

The respondent father brought a motion to enforce an alleged settlement of all issues, arguing that the settlement of his motion to change child support included an agreement by the applicant mother to forgo a prior $10,000 costs order.

Alternatively, he sought an extension of time to appeal the costs order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the applicant agreed to waive the costs order.

The court also held it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time to appeal, as that relief must be sought in the Divisional Court.

The applicant wife brought a motion to sever the divorce from corollary relief, obtain an order for an Islamic religious divorce, and seek security for costs.

The respondent husband opposed, arguing that a divorce would prejudice his annulment claim and property division.

The court found no legal basis for the annulment claim, as the evidence did not support non-consummation or fraud for immigration purposes as grounds for annulment.

The court granted the divorce severance and ordered the respondent to cooperate in obtaining the Islamic religious divorce, noting these orders would not prejudice the respondent's property claims.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the respondent lacked assets to pay costs, despite the respondent's unreasonable conduct and an unpaid prior costs order.

The moving party father brought a motion to strike a single sentence from the responding party mother's Reply, arguing it was inflammatory.

The sentence alleged that the father refused to provide funds for a taxi or ride-share for access exchanges during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court reviewed the correspondence between counsel and found the sentence was accurate and relevant to the mother's claim for child and spousal support.

The motion to strike was dismissed, and costs of $6,500 were awarded to the mother.

Following a trial in writing on family law issues, the applicant father sought full indemnity costs of $73,208.59.

The court found the father was largely successful on the main issues and the mother's behaviour was unreasonable, particularly regarding the choice of school and spousal support.

However, the father did not beat his offer to settle on all issues, precluding full indemnity costs.

The court also found the father's bill of costs to be excessive for a trial in writing with no cross-examination.

The court awarded the father partial indemnity costs fixed at $20,000 all inclusive.