Courtney Grace Hughes

Following the sale of a mortgaged property, surplus proceeds were interpleaded.

Several execution creditors sought distribution of the funds based on writs existing at the time of the sale.

The respondent ex-spouse brought a motion seeking priority for a family law support order obtained five years after the sale, and to set aside one of the execution creditor's default judgments.

The court dismissed the ex-spouse's motions, holding she lacked standing to collaterally attack the default judgment and that under the Creditors' Relief Act, 2010, a support order made after the creation of the fund cannot take priority over executions existing at the date of sale.

The court granted a motion by one bank to renew its writ nunc pro tunc and ordered the funds distributed among the execution creditors.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support.

The respondent husband, a police officer, was suspended with base pay due to criminal charges laid by the applicant.

The court found the applicant entitled to interim spousal support.

The court declined to impute higher income to the respondent, finding his suspension did not constitute intentional under-employment while criminal charges remained pending.

The court imputed the applicant's income at a discounted rate of $45,000 to account for her recent return to work and health issues.

The applicant brought a motion for further financial disclosure from the respondent and his mother, a non-party, in a family law proceeding.

The applicant alleged the respondent transferred over $1.5 million to his mother to defeat her claims for support and equalization.

The court found the respondent's financial disclosure was deficient and ordered him to produce extensive personal and corporate banking records.

The court also ordered the respondent's mother to produce her personal bank statements, finding her privacy interests were outweighed by the unexplained transfer of family property.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking $140,000 in interim disbursements from the respondent husband to cover business valuations, real estate appraisals, and anticipated legal fees.

The court found the requests for valuation and appraisal costs lacked specificity and were premature given the early stage of financial disclosure.

However, the court awarded $40,000 in interim disbursements for imminent legal fees, finding the applicant lacked the means to fund the litigation and the advance was necessary to level the playing field.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto brought a temporary motion within a Status Review application to vary an existing final order, seeking temporary care and custody of three children.

The children were previously in the mother's care under a supervision order.

The Society argued a long history of concerns including the mother's lack of transparency, non-compliance with orders, exposure to domestic violence, and failure to address the children's complex medical and educational needs.

The mother and father opposed, arguing for the children to remain in the mother's care.

The court applied the "best interests of the child" test under section 113(8) of the CYFSA, finding that a significant change in circumstances impacting the children's best interests required a change in placement.

The motion was granted, placing the children in the temporary care and custody of the Society with discretionary access for the parents.

This case involved a motion to change a 2012 consent order concerning custody, access, child support, and international travel for a child with Cerebral Palsy.

The court found a material change in circumstances, noting the child's evolving needs, the primary caregiver's financial strain, and the parents' inability to co-parent effectively due to ongoing conflict.

The court granted sole custody to the primary caregiver, ordered supervised access for the other parent in Toronto, and permitted international travel to a non-Hague Convention country without a bond.

Retroactive and ongoing child support was ordered, and the other parent's counter-claims were dismissed.

Substantial costs were awarded against the non-compliant parent.

Motion to change a final consent order of August 19, 2009 regarding custody and access of a child born in 2005.

Both parents sought sole custody with access to the other parent.

The child had identified as gender fluid non-binary and the mother had identified as agender, non-binary transgender.

The court found a material change in circumstances and conducted a fresh inquiry into the best interests of the child under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court awarded sole custody to the father, finding that the mother had failed to follow professional recommendations for the child's behavioral and medical needs, had engaged in verbal aggression with school personnel, had refused to cooperate with the father on parenting matters, and had blamed the child's behavioral issues on misgendering rather than addressing the underlying conduct problems.

The father was found to be more cooperative with professionals, more willing to follow recommendations, and better able to provide the stability and support the child required.

In a high-conflict matrimonial proceeding involving extensive disputes over financial disclosure, corporate interests, and equalization, the respondent spouse brought multiple motions including contempt, interim disbursements, and disclosure-related relief.

The court declined to dismiss the contempt motion outright but adjourned it for further legal submissions, noting deficiencies in the supporting factum.

The court granted the respondent an advance of $10,000 against the anticipated equalization payment to retain a financial expert, finding a reasonable need and little doubt that some equalization would ultimately be payable.

Various other motions, including questioning, OCL appointment, and electronic service orders, were dismissed or adjourned.

The matter was placed under case management and converted from a long motion into a settlement conference to promote resolution.

Following earlier guardianship proceedings concerning an incapable adult under the Substitute Decisions Act, a sibling who had acted as de facto caregiver sought reimbursement for expenses incurred while caring for the incapable person for approximately seventeen months.

The court considered evidence from the prior guardianship applications and affidavit materials to determine whether reimbursement was appropriate and whether offsets applied.

The court found that the estate trustees had asked the caregiver to assume responsibility and had agreed to reimburse reasonable expenses incurred for the incapable person’s care.

After accounting for partial payments already made, the court concluded that the caregiver had incurred expenses exceeding the amount claimed.

Judgment was granted against the deceased parent’s estate for $17,000 as an estate administration expense.

Competing applications were brought by siblings seeking appointment as guardian of property and personal care for an adult with developmental disability under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.

The court found the incapable person required full guardianship due to inability to understand or appreciate decisions concerning personal care and property.

Although the incapable person expressed a preference to remain living with one sibling, the court held her wishes carried limited weight given her incapacity to evaluate long‑term interests.

Applying the overarching best interests test, the court preferred the applicant’s proposal due to her long history of caregiving, parenting experience, and more stable family and financial circumstances.

The applicant was appointed guardian and directed to file an amended management plan.