Carolyn J. Lloyd

Following a focused hearing on a motion to change spousal support, the applicant sought $30,000 in costs.

The respondent argued for no costs due to divided success and her limited financial means.

The court found that while success was divided, the applicant was the more successful party and had made reasonable offers to settle.

The respondent's persistence in seeking compensatory support was deemed unreasonable.

Balancing the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including the respondent's limited ability to pay, the court ordered the respondent to pay $18,000 in costs to the applicant.

The applicant sought ongoing and retroactive child support in an undefended trial following the respondent's failure to file an answer or provide complete financial disclosure.

The court found the respondent to be intentionally underemployed and imputed his income at $59,500 based on his previous earnings.

Applying the DBS factors, the court ordered retroactive child support from July 1, 2017, citing the respondent's blameworthy conduct in failing to pay support or provide financial disclosure.

The court calculated retroactive arrears at $31,294 and ordered ongoing child support for the eligible children based on the imputed income.

The applicant brought an urgent motion to amend an existing asset preservation/restraining order to include formal legal descriptions and an additional property, and for declarations that the respondent breached the order and his support obligations.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to vacate or scale back the order.

The court granted the applicant's request to amend the order to include specific properties and declared the respondent in breach of his support obligations.

The court declined to find the respondent in breach of the preservation order as the threatened sale did not materialize.

The respondent's cross-motion was adjourned to a case conference as it had not been triaged for urgency and lacked sufficient evidentiary support.

The applicant father commenced a family law proceeding in Newmarket.

The respondent mother, who primarily cared for their infant daughter in London, sought to transfer the venue and requested temporary sole custody.

The court found the child ordinarily resided in London and transferred the proceeding there pursuant to Rule 5(1)(b) of the Family Law Rules.

Given the parties' lack of historical cooperation and the child's young age, the court awarded temporary sole custody to the mother while implementing a progressive parenting schedule for the father, including overnights.

The parties brought urgent motions regarding parenting time of their two-year-old child prior to a case conference.

The mother had unilaterally terminated the 3/4/4/3 shared parenting arrangement due to safety concerns regarding the father's new residence, including broken glass and drug paraphernalia.

The court found the parenting time issue urgent, noted the father's historical active engagement, and reinstated his parenting time on a modified schedule, conditional on him filing an updated Form 35.1 affidavit.

No costs were awarded as the mother's concerns were reasonable.