C. Baker

The applicant father brought a motion to enforce a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dictated at the conclusion of a family mediation.

The respondent mother opposed, arguing there was no final agreement and that mediation communications were protected by settlement privilege.

The court applied the settlement privilege exception from Bouvier, allowing the communications to be reviewed to determine if an agreement existed.

However, the court found the MOU was unenforceable as it did not comply with s. 55(1) of the Family Law Act and there was no meeting of the minds, given the late hour of dictation and the mother's prompt objections.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the mother.

The applicant mother brought a motion to relocate with the parties' three children from Mt Albert to Orillia, approximately 100 kilometres away.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion for a parenting time schedule based on an Office of the Children's Lawyer report.

The court applied the relocation factors under section 16.92(1) of the Divorce Act, finding the move was in the children's best interests due to the mother's medical needs and support system in Orillia.

The relocation was permitted, and a modified parenting schedule was ordered to accommodate the distance.

The parties brought competing motions regarding parenting and child support for their three-year-old child.

The respondent father sought to vary an interim parenting order to a shared 2-2-3 schedule based on an untested Section 30 assessment report, while the applicant mother sought child support and contribution to daycare expenses.

The court dismissed the father's request for shared parenting, finding it premature and noting the mother had not received the full assessment file, but slightly expanded the father's parenting time.

The court ordered the father to pay child support based on an income of $111,801, which included banked vacation pay, and to pay 69% of daycare expenses after imputing an income of $50,000 to the mother due to a lack of medical evidence supporting her disability claim.

The parties separated after an 11-year marriage.

The trial addressed the equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The respondent sought to include a $500,000 settlement payment the applicant made to his first wife as a date-of-marriage liability or as grounds for an unequal division of property; the court dismissed both arguments.

The court imputed income to both parties, finding the respondent intentionally underemployed.

The applicant was ordered to pay an equalization payment and a lump sum for spousal support based on the high end of the SSAG for an eight-year duration, less credits for post-separation overpayments.

Following a trial where the plaintiffs obtained a judgment for $30,000 and vacant possession of a property, the court determined costs.

The plaintiffs had made a timely Rule 49 offer to settle that was more favourable to the defendants than the trial outcome.

The court awarded the plaintiffs costs of $34,333.67, representing partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The parties were involved in family law litigation where costs of a disclosure motion were reserved.

They subsequently agreed to mediation/arbitration and signed a comprehensive Separation Agreement settling all outstanding issues.

The respondent husband later sought a determination of the reserved costs.

The court held that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the issue of costs because the parties had comprehensively settled all of their outstanding issues, and the husband failed to raise the issue of reserved costs during the mediation or before signing the settlement documents.

The plaintiff construction company supplied concrete foundation services and materials to the defendants under a verbal contract.

The plaintiff registered a construction lien for $42,798.75 and brought an action for payment.

The defendants argued the contract was with their numbered company, the price was lower, and they had paid in cash.

The court found the contract was with the individual defendants, accepted the plaintiff's evidence of the contract price, and found no payments were made toward this specific project.

The court ordered the defendants to pay the full amount claimed and confirmed the validity of the lien.

The 77-year-old plaintiff advanced over $1,000,000 to her adult daughter and son-in-law over a two-year period following a reconciliation.

The funds were used to pay off a mortgage, purchase a new home, install a pool, and included a transfer of shares.

After the parties had a falling out and the plaintiff moved out of the shared home, she sued for the return of the funds, claiming they were loans or held on resulting trust.

The court applied the Pecore principles and found that the defendants successfully rebutted the presumption of resulting trust, proving on a balance of probabilities that all advances were unconditional gifts.

The plaintiff's claims for unjust enrichment, moving expenses, occupation rent, and punitive damages were also dismissed.

Following a motion in family proceedings in which the applicant obtained a temporary restraining order under s. 46 of the Family Law Act but not to the full extent sought, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs, the court considered proportionality, the parties’ conduct, the absence of settlement offers, and the financial circumstances of the respondent.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $4,415.79, while the respondent argued for $2,500 with a payment plan.

The court found the claimed disbursements reasonable but the time spent slightly excessive.

Costs were fixed at $3,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable in monthly instalments.