Christine Vanderschoot

This trial decision addressed financial issues between divorced parents, specifically the determination of the applicant's income for child support and the imputation of income to the respondent.

The court upheld the parties' Separation Agreement, which stipulated using the applicant's T4 employment income for child support calculations, rejecting the respondent's unsubstantiated claims of hidden income through stock options or restricted share units (RSUs).

The court accepted expert and employer testimony confirming the applicant's T4 accurately reflected his total compensation.

Furthermore, the court imputed an annual income of $35,000 to the respondent, finding her intentionally unemployed or under-employed, and ordered her to pay child support arrears.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion for a stay of an interim relocation order, the applicant sought full recovery costs of over $12,000.

The respondent argued for a reduced quantum of $3,000 due to recent job loss and financial strain.

The court found no bad faith to justify full recovery but awarded costs at 75% of full recovery to sanction the respondent's unreasonable behaviour.

Costs were fixed at $9,600, with a direction that failure to pay would not bar the respondent from future participation in the proceeding.

The respondent father sought costs following the dismissal of three unsuccessful urgent motions brought by the applicant mother.

The mother sought leave to bring three 14B motions on May 20, June 4, and August 10, 2020, all of which were dismissed.

The father claimed total costs of $23,995.

The court exercised its discretion to reduce the award, considering the mother's difficult personal circumstances (high-risk pregnancy with triplets), the COVID-19 pandemic context, the bona fide nature of her attempts to arrange parenting time, and the overlap between motion and case conference materials.

The court awarded costs of $10,000 inclusive of HST, payable at $1,000 per month commencing January 1, 2021.

The father brought an urgent motion to restrain the mother from relocating with their eight-year-old child from Toronto to Kemptville.

The mother brought a cross-motion to permit the relocation so the child could attend a specialized reading intervention program.

The court found that the child had significant reading challenges and that the mother's proposed educational plan constituted compelling circumstances to allow the move on an interim basis.

The father's motion was dismissed, and the mother's cross-motion was granted, permitting the relocation for the 2020-2021 school year pending a final determination at trial.

The father was awarded extended parenting time to compensate for the geographical distance.

This costs endorsement addresses the payment of a $750.00 costs award previously granted to the applicant for an unnecessary motion.

The applicant sought to have these costs paid personally by the respondent's former litigation guardian, Mary Keogh, or her counsel, T. Viresh Fernando.

Applying the two-part test from Galganov v. Russell (Township), the court found that counsel's conduct did cause unnecessary costs but, applying the "extreme caution" principle from Young v. Young, declined to order personal costs against him.

However, the court ordered the former litigation guardian, Mary Keogh, to pay the $750.00 costs personally and forthwith, affirming that litigation guardians are responsible for costs awards against the special party they represent, especially when they take unreasonable positions.

This case concerns motions regarding the mental capacity of the respondent, Nichola Feldman-Kiss, and the validity of an ex parte order appointing a litigation guardian.

The applicant, Greg Somers, sought to set aside an ex parte order that declared the respondent a special party and appointed Mary Keogh as her litigation guardian, and to compel the respondent to complete a previously agreed-upon settlement.

The respondent, through her litigation guardian, brought a new motion seeking the same relief as the ex parte order, but on notice and with new medical evidence.

The court set aside the ex parte order due to procedural improprieties and lack of full disclosure.

The court also dismissed the respondent's new motion, finding it to be an abuse of process.

Alternatively, even if not an abuse of process, the court found insufficient reliable evidence to displace the presumption of capacity and retroactively declare the respondent incapable at the time of the settlement.

This endorsement from a case management conference addressed several procedural disputes in a family law matter.

The court clarified the scope of upcoming long motions, disallowing new heads of relief sought by the respondent that were not previously discussed or scheduled.

It permitted the applicant to include material related to costs of prior proceedings, distinguishing these from settlement offers for the current motion.

The court also ordered the respondent's former counsel, Andrew Chris, to attend the long motion, leaving the decision to call him as a witness to the motion judge.

Additionally, the court admonished the respondent's counsel for improper communication with the court and set strict guidelines for future interactions.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking temporary joint decision-making, amendment of the child's birth registration to include his particulars as the father, a name change for the child, expanded access terms, and child support modifications.

The child, Kieran, was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, Severity Level 2 in June 2017.

The respondent mother opposed expanded access and sought to restrict visits to Windsor only.

The court found material changes in circumstances warranting intervention, including the child's autism diagnosis and the parents' inability to communicate effectively about the child's special needs.

The court increased the father's access to every third weekend in Toronto (rather than limited monthly visits in Windsor), ordered the mother to consult with the father on major health and educational decisions, and increased child support.

The court deferred ruling on the name change and birth registration issues pending written submissions on jurisdictional questions.

The parties separated after a 6.5-year relationship during which they raised four children together.

The applicant sought custody of the twin girls, spousal support, and a division of property, while the respondent sought custody of all children and permission to relocate to Kamloops.

The court granted the respondent custody of her two older boys and the applicant custody of the twins, with a shared parenting schedule.

The court dismissed the respondent's mobility claim, awarded the applicant spousal support for seven years, and found that the parties' home and bank accounts were part of a joint family venture, ordering an equal division of those assets.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order requiring him to post $30,000 as security for costs and pay $21,000 in costs.

The underlying dispute involved the applicant's claim to one-half of the matrimonial home based on a domestic contract.

The court applied the test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent on a full recovery basis.

In a high-conflict family dispute, both parents brought competing motions seeking sole custody of two children and changes to an interim parenting arrangement.

The father sought sole custody or expanded decision-making authority and restoration of mid‑week overnight parenting time that the mother had unilaterally terminated.

The mother sought sole custody and elimination of weekday overnights, arguing the arrangement caused stress and behavioural regression for one child.

The court emphasized the strong presumption of maintaining the status quo on interim custody and access motions absent compelling evidence affecting the children’s best interests.

Finding the evidence contradictory and largely untested, and noting the longstanding de facto arrangement of weekday overnights with the father, the court declined to change custody and restored the previous access schedule.

The applicant father sought to prevent the respondent mother from obtaining a passport for their 15-month-old child and traveling to Sri Lanka for her brother's wedding from August 12 to September 4, 2015.

The father raised concerns about flight risk, security in Sri Lanka, and competing paternal family events in Ontario.

The court granted the mother's motion, finding no credible evidence of flight risk, no significant security concerns for travel to Colombo, and that the mother's family circumstances and the child's best interests supported the trip.

The court imposed conditions including security through a joint bank account freeze and communication requirements.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to change the children’s primary residence, alter the parenting schedule, determine schooling, and terminate his child support obligations.

The court considered extensive evidence regarding one child’s serious behavioural disorders, professional assessments, and testimony from a family services worker indicating the need for stability, structure, and consistent parental supervision.

The court found that the mother had demonstrated ongoing inconsistency in attending appointments, follow-through with services, and providing stability, while the father presented a structured care plan including specialized educational programming.

Determining that the children’s best interests required urgent intervention, the court ordered that primary residence change to the father commencing September 1, 2013 and directed that the children attend a school capable of addressing the behavioural needs of one child.

The father’s child support obligation was terminated effective July 1, 2013, while the issue of potential support from the mother was adjourned and disclosure ordered.