C. Ashbourne

The applicant mother brought a motion to find the respondent father in contempt of a prior court order requiring his participation in reunification therapy and a section 30 assessment for their son.

The court found the father in contempt of the provisions requiring him to adhere to the therapy agreement and attend sessions, noting his deliberate and willful delay and refusal to cooperate.

The court dismissed the contempt allegations regarding communication with the therapist and payment of the assessor's retainer, as the latter is a payment order not enforceable by contempt under the Family Law Rules.

The father was ordered to pay a $25,000 fine, return the child to the mother, and was sentenced to 30 days imprisonment, which could be reduced or suspended upon compliance with specific conditions.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, the mother brought a motion to continue a section 30 parenting assessment and to order reunification therapy for the parties and their youngest son.

The father brought a cross-motion to appoint a lawyer for the child or order a Voice of the Child Report.

The court found a history of order non-compliance by the father and determined that the child's estrangement from the mother required immediate intervention.

The court granted the mother's motion, ordering reunification therapy to commence immediately alongside the section 30 assessment, and dismissed the father's motion, finding that further involving the child in the litigation was not in his best interests.

Following a motion for interim disbursements and other relief, the court ruled on outstanding disclosure and costs.

The respondent was ordered to produce various financial documents, including tax returns from 2010 to 2014, to assist in determining income for support purposes.

The applicant sought over $90,000 in costs for the motion.

Finding mixed success but noting the applicant was more successful on the primary issue of interim disbursements, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $15,000.

On a motion to change a 2011 consent order governing custody, residence, and child support under the Children’s Law Reform Act and Family Law Act, the father alleged the mother acted in bad faith by interfering with his relationship with the children and sought sole custody with primary residence in Ontario.

The children had moved with the mother to California pursuant to the consent order while Ontario retained jurisdiction.

After an eight‑day trial, the court found no bad faith by the mother and concluded the father failed to establish that transferring the children’s residence was in their best interests.

However, material changes in circumstances justified revisiting decision‑making authority and financial arrangements.

The court awarded the mother sole custody while maintaining the existing residence and access schedule, reduced the father’s table child support based on income excluding certain capital gains, and imposed limits on section 7 expenses.

Following a family law trial, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The unsuccessful party advanced an unreasonable theory at trial, requiring the opposing party to expend significant effort to establish entitlement to support and property division.

Although the successful party did not obtain the full quantum sought, the court found the litigation efforts necessary, including expert evidence relating to income.

Applying proportionality and the general principle that the successful party is presumptively entitled to costs, the court fixed costs in favour of the successful party.

The parties separated after a lengthy marriage.

The husband worked in an unregistered firewood business with his father and lived rent-free in a home titled to his parents.

The court found the husband's income was $100,000, accounting for unreported cash and personal benefits.

The court also found the husband had a 50% partnership interest in the business and a $100,000 beneficial interest in the home via constructive trust, both of which were included in his net family property.

The wife was awarded an equalization payment of $285,862.24, ongoing spousal support, and child support for their daughter's post-secondary education.