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 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.

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.

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 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.

Following a prior endorsement denying a request for temporary relief from guideline child support based on hardship, the responding party's counsel advised the court of an error in the judge’s reference to the responding party’s 2013 income tax liability.

The corrected amount was substantially higher than previously stated.

The court considered whether the error justified revisiting the earlier refusal of hardship relief.

The judge concluded that the corrected tax liability did not alter the analysis and declined to revisit the denial of the hardship claim.

The applicant brought a motion seeking retroactive and ongoing child support following separation and the breakdown of a shared parenting arrangement for three children.

The respondent opposed retroactive support and brought a cross‑motion seeking relief from any child support obligation based on undue hardship due to disability‑related expenses, and sought leave to amend pleadings.

The court declined to order retroactive support on a temporary motion, finding factual and financial disputes better suited to negotiation or trial.

The court also rejected the respondent’s undue hardship claim, finding his income substantial and insufficient evidence to meet the high threshold under s. 10 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The respondent was ordered to pay guideline support if parenting time fell below 40%, with set‑off under s. 9 applicable if parenting time exceeded that threshold; leave to amend pleadings was granted.

The applicant sought reinstatement of spousal support after the respondent unilaterally suspended payments under Minutes of Settlement resolving family law issues following separation.

The respondent claimed the applicant removed household items contrary to the agreement and relied on a clause permitting suspension of support pending an accounting.

The court found ambiguity and contradiction in the settlement terms governing division of household chattels and concluded the agreement did not clearly resolve the issue.

As a result, the respondent was not entitled to suspend support payments.

The court ordered an accounting of household chattels before an arbitrator and directed that ongoing support and arrears be paid into court pending resolution.

The parties were unable to agree on a parenting time schedule and each submitted a proposed schedule to the court.

The court preferred the applicant’s proposed schedule and ordered that it form the basis of the parenting arrangement, subject to a modification addressing professional development days occurring before the respondent’s parenting weekends.

The order directed that such professional development days and the preceding Thursday overnight be added to the respondent’s parenting time, extending his time from Wednesday at 4 p.m. until the following Monday morning.

Both parties sought costs and submitted bills of costs.

The court found the outcome reflected mixed success and declined to award costs.

On a motion concerning temporary custody and access following separation, the father sought shared parenting of the parties’ three young children after the mother unilaterally terminated an interim two-day rotation arrangement.

The mother raised concerns about the father’s ability to provide adequate care due to a catastrophic spinal injury that left him quadriplegic and reliant on significant assistance.

The court emphasized the importance of maximizing children’s contact with both parents and noted that the matter was at an early stage, with a custody and access assessment anticipated.

A temporary arrangement was ordered granting joint custody with parenting time approximately 60% to the mother and 40% to the father, along with directions to develop a workable schedule and obtain a professional assessment.

The applicant spouse brought a motion seeking interim spousal support, occupation rent for the matrimonial home, and an order for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court declined to grant interim relief, noting the matter was already scheduled for trial within two months and that the requested orders would require credibility findings and fuller financial disclosure.

The court held that issues relating to occupation rent, ownership interests, equalization, and entitlement to spousal support should be determined by the trial judge after a full evidentiary hearing.

Concerns also existed regarding incomplete financial disclosure and the respondent’s ongoing payment of household and child-related expenses.

The motion was dismissed with costs reserved to the trial judge.

On a motion for temporary child support under the Divorce Act and the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court considered whether income should be imputed to an unemployed parent and at what level.

The payor parent had been unemployed for several years following the loss of a high-paying job but asserted ongoing efforts to secure comparable employment.

The court held that a parent with child support obligations must earn what they are capable of earning and may be imputed income on an interim basis where prolonged unemployment persists.

Relying on prior earning history and limited evidence of current earning capacity, the court imputed income of $40,000 annually and ordered temporary guideline child support and proportional section 7 expenses.

Issues of retroactive support, retroactive special expenses, and life insurance were deferred to trial.