Christopher D. McInnis

The applicant sought an order requiring the respondent to disclose her Robinson Huron Treaty settlement particulars, 2025 employment income particulars, and other employment benefits for 2023–2025.

The respondent opposed disclosure of the settlement particulars, citing legal and cultural reasons, but provided other requested financial information.

The court found that the respondent had complied with her disclosure obligations regarding income and benefits, and that the settlement funds were not “income” under the Child Support Guidelines nor relevant to her ongoing means, as they had been spent on legal fees.

The motion for further disclosure was dismissed.

This addendum to a trial judgment addresses unresolved parenting time arrangements for two young children following the mother's approved relocation from Marathon to Espanola, ON.

The court considered the father's request for a weekly monthly schedule and the mother's proposal for a 4-5 day monthly schedule, balancing the children's need for frequent contact with the father against the challenges of long-distance travel and school attendance.

The court ordered a five-day monthly parenting schedule, to be arranged around statutory holidays or PD days to minimize missed school.

It also determined specific holiday parenting time, including summer and March Break, and clarified exchange locations and communication methods.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a previous motion where the respondent was successful.

The respondent sought $8,954 in substantial indemnity costs, citing a Rule 18 Offer to Settle.

The applicant proposed $2,500 plus HST, arguing proportionality.

The court considered the Family Law Rules, particularly Rules 18 and 24, and the three purposes of costs awards.

Finding both parties reasonable and the underlying motion not entirely avoidable due to its complexity, the court awarded the respondent $3,500 plus HST, balancing the factors of success, settlement efforts, and income disparity.

The appellant mother appealed an order interpreting a separation agreement regarding child support and an equalization payment set-off.

The parties had shared custody and agreed to a set-off of child support against a $97,000 equalization payment owed by the mother.

The mother argued the set-off should be calculated from the date of separation based on the father's actual higher income, rather than the date of the agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge made no reviewable error in interpreting the contract and concluding the set-off began at the date of the agreement, noting the discretion under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines for shared parenting.

The applicant mother and respondent father brought motions to determine their four-year-old child's school enrollment, specifically choosing between a French language school in Espanola and a French immersion school in Walden.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, considering factors such as stability, existing bonds with family members and friends, and the parents' ability to support the child's education.

The court ultimately ruled that the child's best interests would be served by attending the French language school in Espanola, maintaining the existing shared parenting arrangement with a suggested transportation plan.

Following a successful one-day family law trial regarding the interpretation of a separation agreement, the applicant sought costs of $10,000 to $13,000.

The respondent argued for no costs due to divided success on other issues resolved prior to trial.

The court excluded costs related to an earlier motion that were not reserved to the trial judge, and awarded the applicant $9,000 in costs.

This case involved the interpretation of a separation agreement concerning child support and equalization payments.

The wife sought an interpretation that would retroactively adjust child support based on the husband's actual income from July 2009 to May 2011, leading to arrears and a faster exhaustion of the equalization payment credit.

The court, applying contract interpretation principles rather than the Divorce Act, found the agreement clear and unambiguous.

It upheld the husband's position that the agreed-upon child support of $2,500 per month was consistent with the Guidelines at the time of the agreement and that no arrears existed prior to its execution.

The wife's request for a retroactive adjustment and payment of $54,922 was denied.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent sought an adjournment of what had been scheduled as an uncontested hearing and requested permission to participate despite failing to deliver pleadings and comply with prior disclosure orders.

The court considered the respondent’s delayed disclosure, the prior orders requiring financial disclosure, and the procedural history including a contempt motion and the death of the respondent’s former counsel.

The court found that the respondent had significantly delayed compliance with his disclosure obligations without adequate explanation.

While permitting the respondent to participate and deliver pleadings, the court imposed significant costs consequences for delay.

The respondent was ordered to pay $8,000 plus HST in costs and comply with disclosure obligations within specified timelines.

The parties each brought motions regarding child support and section 7 expenses, both of which were dismissed.

The applicant subsequently sought costs of $9,250 on a full recovery basis, arguing she was the successful party because the respondent's motion was dismissed and she succeeded on the dominant issue of jurisdiction.

The respondent argued for no costs, as both parties failed on the merits.

The court agreed with the respondent, finding that neither party was successful and the presumption in Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules did not apply.

The court ordered that neither party be awarded costs.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim orders regarding access, child and spousal support, and the distribution of proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The parties separated after the respondent father seriously assaulted the mother, for which he pleaded guilty.

The court ordered gradually increasing unsupervised access for the father, finding no risk of harm to the child.

The court ordered the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home to remain in trust.

For interim support, the court imputed the father's consulting income at his 2013 level and ordered spousal support at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines until the matrimonial home is sold, along with child support.

The responding party brought a motion seeking an interim and permanent reduction in child support and adjustments to post‑secondary expense contributions pending a motion to change a final support order.

The other party opposed the request and sought continued application of an earlier interim order, along with additional child support adjustments for a child attending university and another engaged in post‑secondary studies.

The court reviewed the jurisdiction to temporarily vary final or interim support orders under the Divorce Act and relevant jurisprudence.

It held that while courts may have jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances, such variations should only occur where there is urgent hardship, absurdity, or pressing need.

The evidence did not establish such circumstances, and the issues regarding entitlement to support and section 7 expenses were better addressed at the final hearing of the motion to change.

On a family law motion, the respondent spouse sought interim spousal support following the breakdown of a long-term marriage with two children.

The parties had previously resolved custody, access, and child support by consent.

The moving party had historically been a stay-at-home parent and had recently lost employment in a family business, leaving limited income aside from a training program stipend and child support.

The court held that despite imputed income of $24,000 and the payor spouse’s ongoing expenses for the matrimonial home and child support, the moving party remained entitled to interim support.

Interim spousal support was ordered at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

A ruling on costs following a motion to vary parental access.

The applicant mother sought to relocate from Ontario to Alberta with the parties' two children to join her new partner who had secured employment.

The father opposed the relocation to preserve his existing access regime.

The court allowed the mother's motion to vary access to accommodate the relocation.

Subsequently, the parties negotiated a new access arrangement and child support adjustment.

The mother sought costs on a full indemnity basis, relying on her success on the dominant mobility issue and a formal offer to settle.

The father opposed costs or sought only partial indemnity recovery, arguing the case did not lend itself to settlement given the binary nature of the mobility issue.

The court awarded costs to the mother on a partial indemnity basis at a reduced amount, recognizing both parties' reasonable conduct and the collaborative resolution of collateral issues post-judgment.

Cottage property owners sought a further order modifying an interim consent order governing access over a roadway located on neighbouring lands subject to disputed easements.

The moving parties requested relief permitting propane deliveries, septic pumping, contractor access for repairs, roadway maintenance, and vegetation trimming.

The court held that interim use of the respondents’ property should remain limited to basic use necessary to maintain and enjoy the moving parties’ properties while minimizing risk of damage or inconvenience to the respondents.

Limited relief was granted permitting propane delivery, septic pumping, contractor access for necessary repairs, and controlled trimming of roadside branches, subject to strict conditions.

Requests to undertake broader roadway repairs or renovations were denied pending resolution of the underlying litigation.

On interim family law motions following separation, the applicant sought spousal support, occupation rent, and an order for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home, while the respondent sought ongoing child support for the parties’ adult child who resided with him while attending university.

The court found prima facie entitlement to spousal support based on income disparity following a long marriage and applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines using the parties’ actual 2012 incomes.

Retroactive spousal support was ordered from April 1, 2012, with different monthly amounts based on the parties’ changing incomes, and ongoing support was set at a lower amount.

The applicant was ordered to pay guideline child support for the child living with the respondent.

The court also ordered the immediate listing and sale of the matrimonial home under the Partition Act, with proceeds to be divided and part held in trust pending equalization.

The appellant wife appealed a trial judgment regarding child support, spousal support, unjust enrichment, and costs.

She argued the trial judge was biased, erred in apportioning child support with the biological father, improperly limited spousal support to 9 years despite her disability, and wrongly dismissed her constructive trust claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on all grounds, finding no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion, needs and means analysis, or application of the test for unjust enrichment.

A motion sought rectification of a reference plan and land titles register to correct a surveying mistake that placed a right-of-way over a rock outcrop rather than along the existing gravel road historically used for access.

The applicants argued the surveyor failed to follow the original owner’s instructions and relied on equitable rectification principles based on common mistake.

The court held that rectification would interfere with the registered interests of a bona fide purchaser for value and was therefore barred by the Land Titles Act and the doctrine of indefeasibility of title.

Under the Torrens system, the register is conclusive and equitable remedies cannot override registered rights acquired by purchasers.

The motion to rectify the reference plan and title abstract was dismissed.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) appealed a costs award made against it for failing to pay out a surplus of funds accumulated under a family court support order.

The motion judge had found FRO's retention of the funds unreasonable and contrary to its statutory duties.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that FRO was not a party to the proceedings and therefore could not be subject to a costs award under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Furthermore, the court found that FRO's policy of not paying out surplus funds without a court order was not unreasonable.