Catherine Mariette Calvert

The applicant sought a determination of its rights to a possessory lien over storage containers owned by the respondent, which were deposited by a third-party logistics subcontractor without the respondent's knowledge.

The court found that while the applicant acquired a possessory lien upon receiving the containers, it failed to provide the mandatory 60-day notice to the owner under s. 4(4) of the Repair and Storage Liens Act despite knowing the subcontractor did not own them.

Consequently, the applicant's lien was limited to the unpaid amount for the first 60 days of storage.

The applicant's claim for a non-possessory lien was dismissed as there was no signed acknowledgment of indebtedness.

The parties separated and the mother subsequently denied the father access to their three children following allegations that he and his mother physically assaulted the oldest child.

The father, who was criminally charged regarding the oldest child, sought interim access to the two younger children.

The mother argued access should be supervised pending a child protection investigation.

The court found no evidence of risk to the younger children and ordered graduated, unsupervised interim access for the father.

Following a trial where the maternal grandmother was awarded sole custody of the child, the respondents sought costs.

The applicant father argued each party should bear their own costs due to his limited means and the grandmother's alleged bad faith.

The court found the father's behaviour unreasonable during the litigation, which lengthened the process, but did not find bad faith.

Considering the father's ability to pay and the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court ordered the father to pay costs of $15,000 to the grandmother and $3,000 to the mother, payable in monthly instalments.

This decision concerns a costs award following a successful motion by the Applicant mother for temporary child support arrears and ongoing child support.

The Respondent father was found to owe significant arrears and had failed to provide financial disclosure, leading to income imputation and a finding of unreasonable behaviour and bad faith.

The court, applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, considered the successful outcome for the applicant, the importance of child support, and the respondent's conduct.

While the applicant sought full indemnity costs, the court fixed costs at $8,732.63, inclusive of disbursements and HST, deeming this amount proportionate given the substantial retroactive and ongoing support awarded, and excluding clerical legal assistant fees.

The mother brought a motion for a temporary order for child support arrears, ongoing child support, and to impute income to the father.

The father claimed he was unable to find replacement employment after losing his job in 2012 and started an unsuccessful business venture.

The court found the father failed to provide adequate financial disclosure and was intentionally underemployed.

The court imputed an annual income of $49,628 to the father for 2015, 2016, and 2017, ordered him to pay ongoing child support, and calculated arrears at $61,893.84.

The issue of Section 7 expenses was deferred due to an incomplete evidentiary record.

Both parties sought costs following motions dealing with child support, spousal support, custody and access, and the matrimonial home.

The court found that success was divided on both the agreed-upon and disputed issues.

Considering the lack of formal offers to settle and the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court made no order as to costs.

The applicant sought a retroactive and prospective variation of child support and retroactive section 7 special expenses.

The court determined the respondent's income for ongoing and retroactive child support, setting the retroactive start date to October 1, 2013, based on effective notice.

The respondent's claim of undue hardship was rejected due to insufficient evidence.

The applicant's claim for retroactive section 7 expenses was denied due to lack of receipts and failure to establish necessity.

However, the respondent was credited for cell phone expenses paid for the child.

The court ordered retroactive child support of $24,634.00 and ongoing monthly child support, along with proportionate sharing of post-secondary education costs and maintenance of a life insurance policy.

On urgent interim motions concerning custody of a young child following the parties’ recent separation, the applicant sought sole interim custody and supervised access for the respondent based on allegations of abuse.

The respondent denied the allegations and sought an equal parenting arrangement and permission for travel with the child.

The court emphasized the principle that interim custody motions generally preserve the pre‑separation status quo absent compelling evidence justifying change.

Given conflicting affidavit evidence and the parties’ prior shared caregiving arrangement, the court declined to grant sole custody and instead ordered joint custody with an alternating parenting schedule.

The court also permitted travel with the child and directed that the child attend the previously agreed French pre‑school program.