C. Gilmore

The respondent brought a motion to set aside a final default order in a family law proceeding.

The default order required the respondent to pay significant retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, as well as an equalization payment.

The respondent argued his failure to respond was due to depression and anxiety resulting from the marriage breakdown.

The court applied the test for setting aside a default judgment and found that while the respondent's excuse was thin, he had an arguable defence on the merits regarding income and child dependency.

The motion was granted, conditional upon the respondent paying $22,000 in costs thrown away and a $5,000 lump sum for support.

The applicant sought spousal support, property division, and a restraining order following the breakdown of her marriage to the respondent.

The respondent claimed the marriage was a sham entered into solely for immigration purposes and sought a divorce and unequal division of net family property.

The court found the marriage was not a sham, determined the date of separation to be March 23, 2013, and resolved various property disputes including the valuation of a business, foreign property, and a disputed bare trust over a home.

The court ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment and lump sum spousal support, and issued a non-communication order.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion to dismiss the father's appeal of a temporary order that varied his access to supervised.

The father did not appear at the motion.

The court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the Notice of Appeal was deficient, there was unexplained delay in perfecting the appeal, the appeal lacked merit given the trial judge's findings, and the appeal was moot because a final order had since been issued in the protection proceeding.

The applicant mother brought a motion to stay two orders granting the respondent father overnight access and police enforcement of that access, pending her appeal.

The court found the mother did not meet the test for a stay, noting her history of non-compliance with court orders and lack of a serious issue to be tried.

However, acting in the child's best interests, the court ordered a short transitional access schedule culminating in overnight access, while maintaining the police enforcement order.

The applicant sought costs following a motion for interim spousal and child support and interim disbursements.

Although the respondent was technically successful on the motion, the court found that the respondent's conduct, including withholding critical information about an income analysis and making an unreasonable offer to settle, tempered the presumption of costs in his favour.

The court awarded costs of $3,000 to the applicant.

The applicant sought costs following a motion for interim spousal and child support and interim disbursements.

Although the respondent was successful on the motion, the court found that the respondent's conduct was unreasonable, including withholding critical information about an income analysis and making an unreasonable offer to settle.

The court awarded costs of $3,000 in favour of the applicant.

Following a family law trial where the applicant was largely successful on parenting and support issues, the applicant sought costs.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, noting the applicant's offers were reasonable and closer to the final result, while the respondent's position on support was untenable.

Despite divided success on the specific parenting schedule, the applicant's overall success was proportionally greater.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $143,763.78, representing a middle ground between partial and full indemnity, and ordered the respondent to pay the outstanding balance of the section 30 assessor's fees.

The parties separated after 11 years of marriage and disputed custody, access, and support for their 11-year-old child.

The mother sought sole custody, alleging the father was controlling, undermined her parenting, and alienated the child.

The father sought joint custody and a continuation of the shared parenting schedule.

The court adopted the section 30 assessor's recommendation to grant the mother sole custody due to the parents' inability to communicate effectively and the father's contemptuous behaviour.

A week-about shared parenting schedule was ordered to minimize transitions and conflict.

The court imputed income to the retired father based on his capital assets and dismissed his claim for spousal support, ordering no child support due to the parties' similar incomes.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on charges of impaired operation of a motor vehicle and driving over 80.

The appeal judge found that the trial judge erred by applying the wrong test for reasonable suspicion to demand a roadside screening test, misapprehending the evidence regarding the respondent's right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter, and failing to conduct a proper s. 24(2) analysis.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

Following an eight-year separation, the parties were unable to resolve the division of their personal property and affinity points despite a separation agreement.

The respondent brought a motion for the return of items, which was converted into a short trial.

The court found the applicant to be an evasive witness who deliberately failed to comply with the agreement and court orders, particularly regarding Aeroplan points.

The court divided the disputed chattels item by item, set off the value of the Aeroplan points against amounts owed by the respondent, and awarded $20,000 in costs to the respondent due to the applicant's unreasonable conduct.

The applicant wife sought a divorce, child support, and section 7 expenses, while the respondent husband sought retroactive and ongoing spousal support.

Both parties sought to impute income to the other.

The court imputed income to the wife by adding back a portion of her business deductions for personal expenses, and imputed income of $48,000 per year to the husband due to underemployment.

The court found the husband entitled to non-compensatory spousal support for a 10-year duration.

Given the husband's failure to pay child support and section 7 expenses, the court ordered a lump sum spousal support payment to the husband, which was entirely set off against the retroactive child support, section 7 expenses, and equalization payment he owed the wife.

The husband was also ordered to transfer his interest in a jointly-owned cottage to the wife in lieu of future child support.

The father appealed a trial judgment granting sole custody to the mother with minimal access to the father.

Following the trial, the order was stayed, and the parties reverted to a shared parenting arrangement.

Fresh evidence, including multiple updated Office of the Children's Lawyer reports, demonstrated that the parties' communication had significantly improved following counseling and that the child strongly preferred spending equal time with both parents.

The court set aside the trial judgment, finding it was no longer in the child's best interests, and ordered joint custody with a shared parenting schedule.

The appellant mother sought leave to late file and serve a Notice of Appeal regarding a judgment that significantly expanded the respondent father's access to their child.

The court applied the Kefeli test for extending the time to appeal and found that the appellant's delay lacked a valid explanation.

Furthermore, the court determined the appeal lacked merit, as the trial judge had made clear credibility findings against the appellant and found her actions interfered with the father-child relationship.

The motion was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay $4,000 in costs.

The parties disputed the date of separation and the equalization of net family property following their marriage breakdown.

The applicant claimed a separation date of September 2015, while the respondent claimed May 2015 when he discovered the applicant's extra-marital affair.

The court found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and accepted the respondent's separation date of May 20, 2015.

The court also found the respondent had a 50% beneficial interest in a condominium in Taiwan registered in the applicant's name, applying the presumption of resulting trust.

However, the court accepted that a $400,000 payment to the applicant's father from the sale of a property was a valid debt deduction for the applicant.

The applicant was ordered to pay an equalization payment and a share of post-separation property expenses.

The applicant moved to enforce a term of a separation agreement allowing her to discharge a mortgage on her home at two-thirds of its face value.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought to set aside the agreement entirely, alleging the applicant had fundamentally breached multiple terms regarding access, child support enforcement, and mediation.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that significant factual disputes existed regarding the alleged breaches, making it inappropriate to enforce the settlement on a summary motion.

The respondent was ordered to continue paying child support while pursuing his application to set aside the agreement.

The appellant was convicted of impaired operation and failing to remain, receiving an 18-month driving prohibition.

She applied for a stay of the driving prohibition pending her summary conviction appeal.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay, finding that the appeal based on circumstantial evidence was not frivolous, the appellant would suffer hardship due to her employment requirements, and she would not pose a danger to the public as a first-time offender.

The application was granted with a condition of zero blood alcohol while driving.

Sentencing decision following convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a child relative.

The offences occurred repeatedly over approximately one to one and a half years and involved sexual touching between the accused and a child victim in a familial setting, constituting a breach of trust.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim’s young age, the repeated nature of the conduct, and significant psychological harm reflected in a victim impact statement, as well as mitigating factors including the offender’s lack of criminal record and stable employment history.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence in accordance with Criminal Code sentencing principles, the court imposed a custodial sentence below the Crown’s requested penitentiary range but above the defence’s proposed range.