Christian Pilon

The mother brought a motion to change a 2012 Quebec order that granted sole custody of the child to the father.

The mother had previously abducted the child to France for several years before the child was returned to the father in Canada.

The court found a material change in circumstances but dismissed the mother's request for custody or unsupervised access.

The court concluded that the mother lacked insight into the impact of her actions on the child, remained fixated on unproven allegations against the father, and posed an ongoing risk of alienation.

The father retained sole custody, and the mother was granted supervised access and supervised electronic communication.

The applicant sought costs after successfully defending a motion brought by the respondent regarding an alleged final agreement.

The applicant claimed up to $36,764.57 in full recovery costs.

The respondent argued the applicant should be sanctioned for improperly submitting documents to the judge after the hearing had concluded.

The court found the applicant was presumptively entitled to costs as the successful party.

While noting the applicant's post-hearing communications were improper, the court declined to impose a sanction because the late documents were not considered.

Finding the applicant's docketed time excessive, the court awarded a lump sum of $20,000 inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.

Following a motion where the applicant successfully obtained child support based on the respondent's full income, the court determined costs.

The self-represented applicant sought $2,730.

The court allowed reasonable disbursements for printing, parking, process serving, and mileage, totaling $632.

However, because the applicant failed to accept a reasonable post-decision offer of $1,000 from the respondent, the court deducted $100 to partially reimburse the respondent's legal expenses for preparing costs submissions, resulting in a final award of $532.

The applicant mother sought a retroactive adjustment of child support and s. 7 expenses, and an increase in life insurance as security, following a significant increase in the respondent father's income.

The respondent father requested that his income be capped at $150,000 for child support purposes, arguing that the table amount would constitute a wealth transfer and that the child's needs had not changed.

The court found that the father failed to rebut the presumption that the table amounts were appropriate, given his increased income and the mother's strained financial situation.

The court ordered the father to pay increased child support retroactively and share s. 7 expenses proportionally, but dismissed the mother's request to increase life insurance and her claim for soccer expenses incurred without agreement.

The respondent brought a motion seeking a declaration that the parties had entered into a binding partial agreement on December 22, 2016, concerning the transfer of the applicant's interest in a maple grove company located in Quebec.

The applicant opposed, arguing that essential terms of the agreement were not settled.

The court found that while some terms like price and payment were discussed, other crucial issues, including security for payments, indemnification for company expenses, and the resolution of a third-party claim, remained unresolved.

The court concluded that the parties had only reached an agreement in principle, not a binding contract, as all essential terms were not agreed upon.

Consequently, the respondent's motion was dismissed.

The court also issued orders for further financial disclosure from both parties.

The applicant, Madeleine Robert, as testamentary trustee for the Estate of Stella Barbeau, sought full indemnity costs following a motion for directions resolved by consent order.

She argued the motion was necessitated by the unreasonable position of respondents Jean Barbeau and André Barbeau, and the unreasonable delay by Richard Séguin.

The court, applying principles from the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found that Jean and André Barbeau were the losing parties due to their abandoned position on property title.

Richard Séguin was found to have acted unreasonably by delaying his response and requiring a motion for validated service.

The court rejected the applicant's claim for full indemnity costs, noting the offer to settle did not trigger Rule 49 consequences and that the estate's approach to the motion and costs was aggressive.

The court also criticized the applicant's refusal to provide account statements.

Costs were fixed at 80% of the substantial indemnity scale for Jean and André Barbeau, and a fixed amount for Richard Séguin, after reductions for work done prior to the motion and non-motion related disbursements.

The applicant filed two motions: one for a declaration of contempt against the respondent for non-compliance with orders, and another to modify supervised access arrangements for their child, Figaro, and to compel the respondent to provide information about the child.

The contempt motion was dismissed due to improper service.

For the second motion, the court, considering the child's best interests and expert recommendations, ordered weekly supervised visits for the applicant in Ottawa with a social worker, and directed the respondent to provide school, activity, and health information about the child.

The court declined to modify the existing supervised access order to allow visits at the applicant's home, emphasizing the need for supervised contact until the upcoming trial and noting the history of jurisdictional changes by the applicant.

This was an interim support motion where the applicant sought child and spousal support from the respondent.

The court found the applicant entitled to spousal support and the respondent obligated to pay child support.

Despite the respondent's claim of lower income, the court was not convinced, noting his operational businesses and substantial retained incomes under his sole control.

The court fixed the respondent's yearly income, on a without prejudice basis, at $130,000 and ordered him to pay child support of $1,781.00 per month and spousal support of $2,000.00 per month, retroactive to April 1, 2016.

Le père a présenté une motion et la mère une motion reconventionnelle concernant la garde des enfants, l'horaire de résidence, les voyages, le transport, la garderie, l'évaluation orthophonique d'un enfant, l'aide psychologique pour l'autre enfant et la présence des enfants à un accouchement.

La Cour a maintenu le statu quo pour l'horaire de résidence et la garde par les grands-parents maternels, a ordonné l'évaluation orthophonique de Sara par le CHEO, et a rejeté les demandes d'aide psychologique pour Emma et l'ordonnance concernant l'accouchement.

La Cour a également précisé que la mère n'avait pas besoin d'une ordonnance pour critiquer le rapport d'expert, la recevabilité étant une question pour le juge du procès.

The court issued an endorsement to clarify the drafting of a previous order dated February 11, 2016, concerning child support and extraordinary expenses.

The initial intent was for the applicant to deduct 30% of annual extraordinary expenses from her monthly child support payments.

However, this formula was deemed impractical for the Family Responsibility Office to enforce due to the lack of a stipulated net payable amount.

The court clarified that the applicant's monthly child support payment remains fixed at $900, with arrears set at $4,500 for September 2015 to January 2016.

For extraordinary expenses, the respondent is now ordered to reimburse the applicant 30% of the paid amount within 30 days of receiving receipts, rather than the applicant deducting it from her child support payments.

This costs endorsement followed motions concerning custody, access, and child support for the parties' daughter.

The applicant sought regular access and costs, while the respondent sought sole decision-making, child-led access, and child support adjustments.

The court found the applicant to be the more successful party, having obtained an order for gradually increasing access, while the respondent's primary requests were denied.

The respondent's conduct was deemed unreasonable due to unilaterally varying a separation agreement, failing to negotiate, and employing delay tactics.

The court awarded the applicant $10,500 in costs, inclusive of HST, but disallowed disbursements and costs related to earlier litigation stages due to insufficient detail and prior adjudication requirements.

The applicant sought to vary a previous order that granted him access to his daughter on the condition that he submit to bi-weekly hair follicle testing.

The applicant argued that the cost of the testing was unexpectedly high and requested a variation under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules, claiming a mistake was made regarding the cost.

The respondent opposed the request.

The court dismissed the request, finding no mistake, as the applicant had previously offered to undergo the testing without conditions and had prior knowledge of the testing process.

The parties shared equal physical custody of their 12-year-old daughter until the respondent mother unilaterally terminated the arrangement following an incident where she alleged the applicant father was intoxicated.

The applicant admitted to a binge drinking problem, sought treatment, and provided proof of his efforts, but the respondent continued to withhold access, arguing the child wished to control when she saw the applicant.

The court found that placing the burden of deciding access on the child was not in her best interests and caused her significant stress.

The court ordered a gradual reintegration of access for the applicant, subject to conditions including no alcohol consumption and regular hair follicle testing, and appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The respondent father brought a motion for temporary orders including child support, spousal support, and permission to communicate with the applicant mother.

The mother brought an informal cross-motion for child support.

The court found that the father met the 40% threshold for shared custody and imputed his income at $40,000 due to insufficient financial disclosure.

The mother was ordered to pay $900 per month in child support, subject to a 30% reduction for extraordinary expenses she paid.

The father's requests for temporary spousal support and direct communication with the mother were dismissed due to the high-conflict nature of the separation.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order compelling the parties to resolve their parenting disputes through arbitration pursuant to clauses contained in a prior divorce order.

The respondent initially challenged the court’s jurisdiction based on the arbitration clause but later consented to having the issues determined by the court.

The court held that the applicant could not invoke the arbitration clause after having already commenced litigation to modify the arbitration outcome and after strategically changing positions.

Interpreting s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, the court concluded that a party who initiated court proceedings cannot seek a stay in favour of arbitration.

The court exercised jurisdiction to determine the parenting issues.

The applicant brought a motion to modify prior parenting arrangements, seeking authority over major decisions affecting the child, including schooling, daycare, and primary residence.

The dispute concerned which school the child should attend for the 2015–2016 school year, as well as daycare placement and interim primary residence.

The court applied the best interests of the child analysis under s. 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act and considered extensive evidence regarding the child’s special needs, including autism spectrum disorder and ADHD.

Emphasizing the importance of stability and routine for a child with special needs, the court concluded that a further school change immediately before the start of the school year would not be in the child’s best interests.

The court ordered that the child continue attending the existing school and daycare, with primary residence remaining with the father on an interim basis pending the final decision.

Requête provisoire en droit de la famille portant sur des questions résiduelles après règlement partiel, notamment le droit du premier refus, les passeports des enfants, les voyages à l’étranger, le transport des enfants, l’accès à la résidence familiale pour récupérer des biens et la pension alimentaire pour enfants.

Le tribunal a ordonné à la mère de signer les documents nécessaires à l’obtention des passeports et de remettre les certificats de naissance, tout en lui laissant provisoirement la garde des passeports.

Le père a été autorisé à voyager avec les enfants en République Dominicaine, mais la question des voyages aux États-Unis a été laissée au juge du fond.

La demande relative au transport par les grands-parents paternels et la conjointe du père a été rejetée, tout comme la demande d’accès supplémentaire à la résidence familiale.

Le tribunal a aussi ordonné, sans préjudice, le paiement de 8 483 $ à titre de pension alimentaire impayée depuis février 2014 et de 569 $ par mois à compter du 1er juin 2015.

The applicant moved to terminate spousal support following voluntary retirement at age 55, arguing that the resulting reduction in income was a material change in circumstances and that continued support would amount to double recovery after equalization of his pension.

The court held that retirement at age 55 and its income consequences were reasonably foreseeable when the parties executed both the partial and final separation agreements, particularly given the express contractual language that a voluntary reduction in income would not constitute a material change.

Applying the material change threshold under s. 17(4.1) of the Divorce Act and the principles governing negotiated spousal support agreements, the court found no basis to vary the support obligation.

The respondent's limited employability, modest circumstances, and ongoing economic hardship arising from the marriage breakdown supported continued support.

The motion was dismissed, support was fixed at $2000.00 per month from March 1, 2014, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed an order confirming a previous order that struck his pleadings for failing to comply with multiple disclosure orders in a family law proceeding.

The Court of Appeal found no error by the motion judge, noting the appellant failed to provide evidence of compliance despite being given ample opportunity.

The appeal was dismissed, though the Court left open the possibility for the appellant to seek an indulgence to reopen pleadings if he demonstrates substantial compliance in the future.

Following the dismissal of a motion to change seeking to terminate or reduce spousal support, the successful party sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court applied the presumption of costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules and considered the factors under Rule 24(11).

The moving party had failed to provide reliable medical evidence supporting his alleged inability to pay support and had unilaterally ceased making support payments, leaving the responding party dependent on limited pension income.

The court found the motion lacked a proper evidentiary foundation and forced the responding party to incur unnecessary legal expenses to defend support that was critical to her livelihood.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded.