Czutrin J.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a family law arbitration award, arguing the arbitrator erred in law by finding that child support for his son was 'suspended' rather than 'terminated' during a gap year before university.

The applicant claimed that a termination of child support would have triggered a de novo review of spousal support under the parties' divorce order.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator made no error of law and correctly determined that the gap year did not terminate the child support obligation, thereby not triggering the spousal support review.

The moving party father brought a motion to terminate child support, incurring nearly $400,000 in legal fees, which was ultimately dismissed.

The responding party mother, who was largely self-represented but utilized unbundled legal services, sought costs.

The court found the father's conduct unreasonable and disproportionate to the financial issues at stake.

The court awarded the mother $90,000 in costs, recognizing the need to compensate self-represented litigants and those using limited scope retainers to ensure access to justice.

The appellant father appealed final orders regarding custody, access, and child support made by a case conference judge.

The father, who was unrepresented at the conference, had requested an adjournment to retain counsel, which was denied.

The case conference judge proceeded to make final substantive orders based on the mother's offer to settle and an Office of the Children's Lawyer report, despite the lack of consent or formal evidentiary record.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that making opposed final orders at a case conference without proper evidence or procedural fairness constitutes a palpable and overriding error.

The orders were set aside and the matter remitted to the lower court.

The applicant mother brought a motion for exclusive possession of the parties' subsidized three-bedroom home and for a temporary parenting schedule for their two young children.

The parties had a history of domestic altercations and frequent moves.

The court found it was in the children's best interests to return to the subsidized home with the mother, as her native status facilitated the housing application.

The father was ordered to vacate the home and was granted a temporary parenting schedule of alternate weekends and Wednesday overnights, with exchanges to occur at daycare to minimize contact between the parents.

Following a five-day family law trial regarding parenting, support, and the validity of a marriage contract, the respondent sought costs of $119,705.54.

The applicant, who was self-represented at trial, argued that each party should bear their own costs.

The court reviewed the history of the litigation, the parties' respective offers to settle, and their conduct.

Finding that the respondent was the successful party and had acted reasonably throughout, while the applicant had acted unreasonably by avoiding disclosure and causing delay, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent $100,000 in costs.

The respondent sought to enforce interim child and spousal support payments previously ordered, while the applicant sought relief from paying arrears and a retroactive reduction of support based on the respondent's new employment.

The court found the applicant's expert report on his self-employment income inadequate and ordered the applicant to pay the arrears from funds held in trust.

The court also set temporary ongoing child and spousal support based on imputed incomes of $89,000 for the applicant and $41,000 for the respondent.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated after an 11-year relationship.

The father, a business owner, sought joint custody, a determination of support, and enforcement of a marriage contract.

The mother sought custody, support, and equalization, challenging the marriage contract's validity.

The court found the marriage contract unenforceable due to lack of financial disclosure.

The court conditionally maintained joint custody, ordering the father to relocate closer to the child's school or face a reduction in parenting time.

The court imputed the father's income at $338,000, adding back corporate expenses and income split with his new wife, and ordered him to pay $8,000 per month in spousal support and $2,316 per month in child support.

The wife commenced an application for divorce, custody, and property equalization in Ontario.

The husband, who had commenced competing proceedings in Nigeria, brought a motion to dismiss the Ontario action for lack of jurisdiction.

The court found that the wife had prima facie established that she was ordinarily resident in Ontario for at least one year preceding the application, satisfying the Divorce Act residency requirement.

However, the court ordered a trial of an issue to determine whether Ontario or Nigeria is the more appropriate forum (forum non conveniens), as there was insufficient evidence regarding Nigerian family law, the validity of the marriage, and the parties' international property holdings.

The father brought a motion for contempt alleging the mother failed to comply with a court order requiring their child to attend daycare daily.

The mother argued the daycare location was impractical and she was available to care for the child.

The court declined to alter the daycare requirement pending evidence addressing the mother's alleged alcohol issues, and adjourned the contempt motion.

The court also set the father's interim income for support purposes based on his 2010 Notice of Assessment, pending further documentation of his current consulting income.