Cecil J. Lyon

The applicant mother sought proportionate sharing of respite care for their adult son with severe autism spectrum disorder and a monetary penalty for the respondent father's failure to comply with disclosure orders.

The respondent father opposed the motion and sought a capacity assessment for their son and interim parenting time.

The court imposed a $10,000 monetary penalty for chronic, untimely, and incomplete disclosure spanning six years, while adjourning the respite care, capacity assessment, and parenting time issues pending determination of the son's capacity to participate in proceedings.

The decision addresses a motion for the immediate sale of a jointly owned cottage property in the context of ongoing family law proceedings.

The applicant mother sought the sale, while the respondent father opposed until equalization of net family property was resolved.

The court also considered reimbursement for post-separation and education expenses, and the need for business valuations.

The court ordered the mother to complete business valuations, granted interim reimbursement to the father for certain expenses, and ordered the immediate sale of the cottage, setting out a process for appraisal and sale.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Dianne Pearl Douglas from a final order in a family law proceeding concerning parental decision-making, parenting time, and child support.

The appellant argued that the motion judge erred in finding a material change in circumstances and in determining that the respondent’s parenting time met the 40% threshold under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The Court found no error in the motion judge’s findings or application of the law, upholding the retroactive adjustment to child support and awarding costs to the respondent.

The appellants appealed the Regional Municipality of Durham's approval of Official Plan Amendment 126, which updated the Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan.

Brookhill North Landowners Group Inc. brought a motion for partial approval of the amendment for lands not subject to the site-specific appeals.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that partial approval would not prejudice the appellants' site-specific appeals and that withholding approval for the entire secondary plan area would prejudice other landowners.

The Tribunal also approved a Procedural Order and scheduled a three-day video hearing for the remaining appeals.

The Applicant, Adele Cummings, sought leave to bring a motion to access $140,000 from her anticipated equalization payment to finance her upcoming trial.

The Respondent, Stephen Horwitz, opposed, arguing that leave should only be granted in exceptional circumstances after a settlement conference.

The court granted leave, finding that the Applicant's request constituted an exceptional circumstance due to her limited earning capacity, significant litigation costs, and the impact of the trial on her future financial security, emphasizing the importance of access to justice.

The applicant mother sought a parenting order for the respondent father to care for their adult special needs child on alternate weekends, or for the father to contribute to respite care costs.

The father argued the motion could not proceed until the adult child was heard, relying on J.F.R. v. K.L.L. The court found that a parenting order for an adult child requires a determination of the child's capacity and an opportunity for the child to be heard, as per J.F.R. v. K.L.L., but that a child support order for a Section 7 expense would not necessarily trigger the same requirement.

The motion was adjourned pending a capacity determination for the adult child.

The applicant sought disclosure of the respondent's mental health records and answers to specific questions, arguing their relevance to parenting issues.

The respondent opposed the motion, asserting that the requested clinical notes and records were protected by privilege and that further disclosure was disproportionate.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that the clinical notes and records satisfied the Wigmore test for privilege and that the remaining disclosure requests were not proportionate, especially given the respondent's intention not to call the medical professionals as expert witnesses at trial.

The respondent, Rene Faucher, brought a motion to change seeking shared decision-making, equal shared parenting time, and child support based on s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, including a retroactive adjustment.

The applicant, Dianne Douglas, opposed the increase in parenting time and sought sole decision-making.

The court found that the respondent's parenting time had exceeded 40% since 2017 and granted a retroactive child support adjustment in his favour, effective January 1, 2018.

However, the court dismissed the respondent's request to transition to equal parenting time, citing the children's settled routine, their age, and the protracted duration of the status quo.

The applicant's request for sole decision-making was also dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

In a Motion to Change proceeding, the moving party sought to file a reply affidavit after the responding party delivered a 340-page affidavit shortly before the hearing.

The responding party objected, arguing the Family Law Rules do not explicitly authorize reply affidavits on Motions to Change.

The court held that while the Rules do not explicitly authorize a right of reply, it is common practice and necessary for fairness, especially given the responding party's late filing and the long delay caused by the pandemic.

The moving party was permitted to file a reply affidavit limited to new matters.

The moving party brought an interim motion to suspend his obligation to maintain life insurance as security for spousal support and to suspend enforcement of the support order by the Family Responsibility Office, pending his Motion to Change.

The moving party argued he was in poor health and unable to pay the increased insurance premiums or support.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the moving party had not provided full financial disclosure, particularly regarding $1 million in proceeds from a property sale, and had not sought a stay of the underlying support order.

The moving party was ordered to maintain $500,000 in life insurance, with the responding party paying half the premium pending the final determination.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking an order to compel the applicant mother to cooperate with an update to a Custody/Access Assessment and to share the cost of the update.

The respondent also sought an order requiring the applicant to sign consents for the release of the children's medical and educational records.

The court ordered the applicant to cooperate with the update to ensure the trial could proceed as scheduled, but directed the respondent to pay the cost of the update.

The court also ordered the applicant to execute the requested consents.

The court determined costs following motions for an adjournment and interim spousal support.

The respondent sought over $32,000 in costs, relying on an offer to settle that was more favourable than the spousal support order obtained by the applicant.

The court found the respondent's costs excessive and noted that his denial of spousal support entitlement unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings.

The applicant was ordered to pay $6,000 in costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis.

Following a motion dealing with custody, access, child support, and spousal support, the court determined the issue of costs.

While success on the motion was largely divided, the respondent was successful on the significant issue of spousal support.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that the applicant's decision to litigate in French was unreasonable or warranted higher costs.

After considering the offers to settle and the principles of family law costs, the court ordered the applicant to pay $4,000 in costs to the respondent.

This endorsement addresses outstanding issues from a prior motion, including the appointment of a parenting assessor, child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses.

The court appointed Dr. Pérusse as the parenting assessor, ordering both parties to equally share the assessment and translation costs due to a language barrier.

Nadine Lachapelle was ordered to pay Rebecca Leblanc $498 per month in child support and $1200 per month in temporary spousal support, both retroactive to March 1, 2016.

Rebecca Leblanc was ordered to contribute $125 per month to daycare expenses.

Directions for costs submissions were also provided.

The parties, parents of a five-year-old child, brought multiple motions for temporary orders regarding custody, parenting schedule, exchange time, right of first refusal, choice of dentist and school, parenting assessment, co-parenting counselling, holiday sharing, police enforcement, child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses.

The court declined to make an order for temporary sole custody due to high conflict, instead addressing specific major decisions.

The court ordered the child to continue attending her current French school and to continue treatment with her current dentist.

The exchange time was set at 3:45 pm, and requests for police enforcement and specific holiday schedules for 2017 were dismissed.

Several issues, including child support, spousal support, and the parenting assessment, were deferred for further information.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, continued medical and dental coverage, and a life insurance designation following a 16-year relationship.

The respondent consented to the medical and dental coverage but opposed the support and life insurance claims.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie entitlement to needs-based support due to her financial dependence during the relationship and her ongoing medical needs.

The court ordered interim spousal support of $1,711 per month, representing the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, and ordered the respondent to designate the applicant as the irrevocable beneficiary of a $250,000 life insurance policy to secure the support.

The applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement and claimed retroactive and prospective spousal support under the Family Law Act and the Divorce Act.

She alleged the respondent failed to disclose material assets, the support was inadequate, and she was vulnerable when signing.

The court found the agreement was negotiated with independent legal advice, full financial disclosure was made, and there was no unconscionability or duress.

Applying the Miglin analysis, the court held the agreement met the objectives of the Divorce Act and the applicant failed to demonstrate an entitlement to further support.

The application was dismissed.

This was a family costs endorsement following the applicant's partial success on a motion for leave to appeal a temporary child support order.

The court declined full indemnity because leave had not been granted on all issues and some fees were excessive, but treated the respondent's failure to voluntarily meet child support obligations as unreasonable litigation conduct.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis at $8,500 all inclusive.

The applicant sought an extension of time and leave to appeal an interlocutory family order dismissing her motion for retroactive child support and failing to specify ongoing child support under the Child Support Guidelines.

The court held there was conflicting Ontario authority and good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge’s omission to award any child support for the period after the application was issued, and his failure to determine the amount payable under the new parenting arrangement.

Leave was refused with respect to the purely retroactive portion of the claim before the application issued and the request for full table support for the first period in the particular circumstances.

Leave to appeal was also granted on costs because the original costs award had been made without submissions.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory family law decision concerning child support and the calculation of parenting time under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court found procedural deficiencies, including that the motion for leave to appeal was brought outside the time permitted under the Rules of Civil Procedure without a request for an extension and that no formal order had been taken out from the underlying decision.

The court emphasized that appellate jurisdiction arises only once an order is signed and entered, and that reasons alone cannot be appealed.

Given the absence of a formal order and uncertainty regarding the precise terms of the motion judge’s decision, the court postponed determination of the leave motion pending settlement and entry of the order.