D.A. Jarvis

The applicant sought costs for three motions in a family law proceeding: a non-depletion/Mareva motion, a disclosure motion, and a motion to vary support that the respondent abandoned.

The respondent failed to provide comparative bills of costs or make reasonable offers to settle.

The court awarded the applicant $48,000 in costs.

A third-party lawyer who was the target of the disclosure motion was also awarded $10,000 in costs, payable by the respondent.

The applicant, a former step-parent, sought a contact order with her former partner's child, who has Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The child's biological parents, who share equal parenting time and decision-making responsibility, opposed the contact and brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the application.

The court applied the principle of parental autonomy, finding that the parents' decision to end contact was reasonable and did not imperil the child's best interests.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, dismissing the application, and awarded costs to the parents.

In a bifurcated trial addressing outstanding financial issues following a 2012 separation, the court determined equalization, child support, and spousal support.

Both parties had significant credibility issues.

The court rejected the respondent's expert valuation of the applicant's law practice due to material information deficiencies and lack of disclosure.

Income was imputed to the respondent based on minimum wage, as he unreasonably persisted in unremunerative employment.

The respondent was ordered to pay child support arrears and a modest equalization payment, while the applicant was ordered to pay time-limited, non-compensatory spousal support.

The net result was a payment owed to the applicant, to be satisfied from trust funds held from the sale of the matrimonial home.

In a complex, combined family and civil proceeding, the husband brought motions to further amend his pleadings and compel third-party financial disclosure shortly before a rescheduled trial.

The court dismissed the majority of the requested amendments, finding them to be an attempt to retool his narrative and expand the issues on the eve of trial.

The court ordered the third parties to file an affidavit regarding the availability of the requested records but relieved them from the balance of the summons.

Finally, the court ordered the wife to pay $40,000 in costs thrown away for a previously adjourned trial date.

The parties were scheduled to proceed with motions, but both filed affidavits and exhibits that grossly exceeded the page limitations set out in a prior Case Conference Order and the court's Notices to the Profession.

Neither party sought leave for the voluminous filings.

The court vacated the motions, holding counsel responsible for the non-compliance, and required the parties to seek leave via a Form 14B motion before the motions could be rescheduled.

The court also directed counsel to provide a copy of the endorsement to their clients and noted the court's ability to order lawyers not to charge fees for such work.

The parties were scheduled for a settlement conference regarding equalization of net family properties and support.

Both parties filed extensive briefs but failed to comply with mandatory Family Law Rules regarding financial statements and net family property statements.

Both parties also claimed outstanding disclosure from the other.

The court held that a settlement conference is not the appropriate forum to resolve extensive disclosure disputes and that parties must come prepared and fully compliant with the rules.

The settlement conference was adjourned, with terms set for scheduling any future conference, including the requirement to resolve disclosure issues by motion first.

The applicant mother brought an urgent, uncontested motion for parenting orders regarding the parties' three children following a separation involving allegations of physical violence.

The mother, who wished to return to Pakistan, surrendered her and the children's passports to her lawyer.

Based on the mother's unchallenged evidence, the court granted the requested relief, deemed the children habitually resident in Ontario, prohibited their removal from the province, and adjourned the matter to a case conference.

The moving party brought an urgent motion to change final orders regarding child support and access.

The court dismissed the motion because the moving party failed to demonstrate genuine settlement efforts, failed to disclose a prior dismissal and unpaid costs order, and repeatedly failed to follow the Family Law Rules by using a Form 14 instead of a Motion to Change.

The moving party was ordered to pay $2,000 in costs and barred from bringing further motions until all costs are paid.

The applicant brought a motion requesting leave to proceed with an urgent motion for spousal support.

Pursuant to a newly effective Notice to the Profession and Family Law Litigants and Protocol for Central East Region, leave on the basis of urgency was no longer required since a case conference had already been held.

The court dismissed the motion for leave without prejudice, noting it was unnecessary, and directed the applicant to file an Assignment Court Confirmation request to proceed with her intended motion.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for leave to proceed with a motion regarding access and communication with the parties' two children, alleging the applicant mother had blocked access.

The mother opposed the urgency and alleged the father inappropriately discussed adult matters and the litigation with the children.

The court found a pressing need for judicial intervention but determined a case conference, rather than a motion, was the appropriate next step.

The court ordered a case conference to be scheduled and maintained the current access status quo pending the conference.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to vary a temporary order regarding the respondent father's access to their two children.

The father had been exercising access supervised by his parents, but was recently charged with criminal harassment and repeatedly breached court orders by discussing prohibited topics with the children.

The Children's Aid Society verified concerns about the children's exposure to conflict and the grandparents' inability to supervise the father.

The court granted the motion, suspending in-person access until supervised access facilities reopen, and ordering daily videocalls.

The mother brought an urgent, ex parte motion to change a final joint custody order to allow her to relocate with the child.

The court considered the motion under the COVID-19 Notices to the Profession.

The court found the motion was not urgent enough to proceed without notice, but qualified as a pressing matter.

The court ordered the mother to serve the father and scheduled a case conference.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion without notice for the return of two of the parties' children to her care, alleging domestic abuse.

The applicant father disputed the allegations and claimed the children primarily resided with him.

The court found the matter was a parenting dispute rather than an urgent issue arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, though it noted concern over the father's apparent failure to facilitate contact.

The court declined to proceed with the motion and instead directed the parties to attend a case conference restricted to temporary parenting arrangements.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for a Case Conference to address the applicant mother's alleged denial of access to their two children during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted the motion and issued procedural directions for scheduling the conference and filing briefs electronically, suspending certain Family Law Rules in light of the pandemic.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to suspend the respondent father's access to their three-year-old daughter due to concerns about his compliance with COVID-19 public health protocols.

The court had temporarily suspended access pending an affidavit from the father.

After reviewing the father's affidavit and hearing his assurances that he was following all provincial COVID-19 precautions, the court rescinded the temporary stay and reinstated the father's access pursuant to the existing parenting order.

Costs were reserved.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 pandemic to suspend the respondent father's access to their 3-year-old daughter.

The mother had repeatedly requested assurances from the father that he was complying with public health guidelines regarding social distancing and third-party exposure during his parenting time.

The father refused to meaningfully engage or provide the requested information.

The court found the mother's requests reasonable and child-focused, and held that the father's failure to communicate and cooperate regarding the child's safety was unacceptable.

The court ordered the father's access suspended until he files an affidavit addressing the mother's COVID-19 concerns to the court's satisfaction.

The parties engaged in a family arbitration that resulted in an award ordering the respondent to pay $450,000 in lump sum spousal support and $185,000 in costs.

The respondent appealed the award and brought a motion to stay its enforcement pending the appeal, while the applicant moved to dismiss or stay the appeal due to the respondent's failure to pay the award.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the respondent failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, particularly given the arbitrator's findings of egregious financial non-disclosure by the respondent.

The court declined to dismiss the appeal as an abuse of process but ordered that the respondent must comply with the support order by a specified date, failing which the applicant could move to dismiss the appeal.

The parties attended a trial scheduling conference for a family law application involving equalization and support.

The applicant was ready for trial, but the self-represented respondent sought an adjournment and estimated a ten-day trial, proposing to tender over 2,000 documents.

The court found the issues were not complex and did not require ten days.

Due to the late delivery of an expert report and the volume of proposed evidence, the court ordered a further settlement conference and issued strict procedural directions regarding disclosure, expert reports, witness statements, and financial statements to ensure the matter proceeds efficiently.

The mother brought a motion to strike the father's pleadings due to his persistent failure to comply with court orders regarding financial disclosure and payment of costs.

The court granted the motion to strike the pleadings, noting the father's cavalier attitude towards his obligations.

However, the court declined to immediately impute an income of $180,000 to the father as requested by the mother, instead giving him a final opportunity to provide proper corporate and personal tax disclosure.

The court also dismissed the mother's claim to set aside the property provisions of their separation agreement based on the father's non-disclosure of a tax refund, as the agreement contained a clear waiver of financial disclosure.

The applicant wife brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, interim disbursements, preservation orders, and to add the husband's father and his new company as parties.

The wife alleged the husband was hiding assets and intentionally bankrupting their previously successful business to avoid support obligations.

The husband claimed he and his business were insolvent.

The court found the husband's financial evidence suspicious and his conduct concerning, noting he paid creditors instead of supporting his family.

The court ordered $7,500 monthly in unallocated support, granted leave to add the father and his company as parties, and ordered various financial disclosures and preservation measures, but declined to impute an $800,000 income or order interim disbursements at this stage.