D.A. Jarvis

In the context of an ongoing family law arbitration, the respondent wife brought a motion for third-party document production against the applicant husband's business partner and related corporations.

The documents were sought to assess the soft costs of a real estate development project for equalization purposes.

The third party opposed the motion, alleging the wife breached the implied undertaking rule by tipping off the CRA, which led to an audit.

The court found no satisfactory evidence to justify the third party's sudden withdrawal of cooperation and granted the motion for document production pursuant to Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules.

The parties, who continued to reside in the matrimonial home post-separation, brought competing motions regarding the temporary custody of their children and exclusive possession of the home.

The mother sought exclusive possession due to the toxic home environment adversely affecting the children, while the father sought the pre-trial sale of the home and alleged parental alienation.

The court granted the mother temporary exclusive possession, finding that the high-conflict environment was intolerable and detrimental to the children's best interests.

The father's motion for the pre-trial sale of the home was dismissed to prevent further emotional disruption to the children.

Both parties' requests for psychiatric assessments of the other were also dismissed.

The court determined costs arising from four prior family law motions relating to partial distribution of matrimonial home sale proceeds and disclosure obligations following the death of a spouse.

Although success on the motions was divided, the estate trustee was more successful on the principal issue concerning the release of sale proceeds.

The court considered Family Law Rules 24 and 18 governing costs and offers to settle, as well as the parties’ conduct regarding disclosure and litigation behaviour.

The estate sought full indemnity costs exceeding $45,000, while the respondent sought approximately $7,996.

The court awarded the estate $17,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST, structured with partial immediate payment and the balance deferred pending final resolution of the proceedings.

A father sought access to his six‑year‑old child after nearly five years of minimal or no contact and in circumstances where the mother failed to participate in the litigation and repeatedly frustrated prior access arrangements.

Evidence included a psychological assessment recommending only supervised contact due to concerns about the father’s emotional stability, parenting insight, and past substance abuse.

Applying the best interests test under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court emphasized the child’s right to know both parents while balancing safety concerns.

The court found that completely denying access would be inappropriate despite the lengthy absence of contact.

Transitional supervised access through a counselling service was ordered, with further court review to monitor progress.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2005 final order regarding child support, arguing a material change in circumstances because both children had moved to live exclusively with her and stopped attending private school.

The court found a material change in circumstances and ordered the respondent father to pay retroactive Table child support based on the dates of effective notice.

The court also ordered the father to pay his proportionate share of section 7 expenses, including post-secondary education costs, and dismissed his request to reapportion mediation fees, finding that issue had been settled.

Following a motion to change a temporary family law order concerning custody, child support, a restraining order, and disclosure, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Although the moving party achieved limited success on certain financial adjustments and disclosure matters, the responding party was largely successful in resisting the primary relief sought.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court considered the presumption that the successful party receives costs, the parties’ litigation conduct, and proportionality.

The court found the moving party had pursued extensive relief with limited prospects of success and had a history of unsuccessful motions.

Costs were awarded to the responding party but reduced in light of disclosure issues and financial circumstances.

The respondent spouse brought motions seeking to set aside a prior order striking his pleadings for failure to comply with disclosure obligations and to extend the time for delivering financial disclosure in a family support proceeding.

The court reviewed the lengthy procedural history and concluded the moving party had repeatedly ignored disclosure orders and failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the prolonged non-compliance.

Applying appellate guidance on the discretionary power to strike pleadings for litigation misconduct, the court declined to reinstate the pleadings.

However, to assist the court’s fact‑finding process on outstanding support issues, the moving party was granted limited participation rights at trial, restricted to cross‑examination and submissions.

Costs were awarded against the moving party.

On a summary judgment motion in a child protection proceeding, the society sought an order placing the child in the care and custody of the father and stepmother under s. 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The mother opposed the motion but did not attend, relying on filed affidavits.

The court held that the society met its burden under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules by establishing there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the child’s best interests.

Evidence demonstrated significant improvement in the child’s stability, well-being, and development while residing with the father and stepmother, while the mother failed to present a viable parenting plan or evidence of improved capacity.

Summary judgment was granted placing the child in the permanent care and custody of the father and stepmother, with conditional supervised access available to the mother upon meeting specified requirements.

Following a family law trial involving custody, support, and property issues, the court determined costs between the parties.

The respondent spouse had been largely successful at trial, including on custody and support, while the applicant spouse achieved only a modest equalization payment.

The court reviewed the parties’ settlement offers under the Family Law Rules and found the respondent’s offer demonstrated a reasonable assessment of the issues, while both parties had engaged in some unreasonable litigation conduct.

Although the respondent claimed nearly $85,000 in full recovery costs, the court held the matter was not complex and that the involvement of two counsel and more than 250 hours of work was excessive.

The court awarded $32,000 in costs inclusive of disbursements and HST, with a portion deemed enforceable as a support order.

The respondent mother brought a motion to change a temporary order regarding custody and child support, and sought a restraining order and further financial disclosure from the applicant father.

The court dismissed the request to change custody, finding the evidence diametrically opposed and unsuitable for summary judgment.

The court also dismissed the request for a restraining order due to insufficient evidence.

The court varied the temporary child support order to reflect the father's current payments of $1,293 monthly and ordered him to reimburse specific Section 7 expenses, while also directing him to provide specific credit card applications for disclosure.

Following settlement of a motion to change child and spousal support at a settlement conference, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party had provided financial disclosure supporting a reduction in income months before commencing the motion and had made a compliant offer to settle that closely matched the eventual settlement.

The court held the moving party was the successful party and found the responding party should have accepted the offer earlier after her own expert confirmed the income analysis.

While some of the moving party’s claimed legal fees were found excessive, the court awarded partial recovery including accountant expenses and post-offer costs.

The responding party was ordered to pay costs totaling $18,292.98 plus HST, payable in monthly installments.

The father brought an urgent motion to reinstate unsupervised access to his three-year-old daughter after the mother unilaterally withheld access based on allegations of sexual abuse.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking supervised access.

The court reviewed the history of investigations by police and child protection authorities, all of which concluded the allegations were unfounded.

Applying the risk of harm analysis, the court found insufficient credible evidence of abuse and determined there was a low risk of harm and significant benefit to the child having a relationship with the father.

The father's motion for unsupervised access was granted and the mother's cross-motion was dismissed.

Following a family law motion involving multiple heads of relief, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving party sought $45,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, alleging the responding party acted in bad faith and failed to comply with earlier court orders.

The responding party argued the claimed costs were excessive for a short motion and requested her own costs or that costs follow the event at trial.

Applying Family Law Rule 24 and the reasonableness principle from appellate authority, the court found the moving party had been largely successful but that the claimed fees were excessive for a one-hour motion.

Because the responding party acted in bad faith regarding issues involving the child and the sale of the matrimonial home, the court ordered partial recovery costs.

In a family law proceeding, the court considered whether costs should be ordered personally against a lawyer who formerly acted for the respondent spouse.

The lawyer failed to ensure the timely filing and service of the respondent’s Answer and related pleadings, despite having them signed, and made no meaningful follow-up after the opposing party initiated uncontested trial procedures.

This failure resulted in a final order being obtained and the respondent being excluded from the matrimonial home, necessitating further motions and new counsel.

Applying Family Law Rule 24(9), the court found that the lawyer’s conduct wasted costs and justified a personal costs order.

The lawyer was ordered to personally pay a portion of both parties’ costs.

In a child protection proceeding, the respondent mother brought a motion seeking the return of four children from foster care to her temporary care and custody under the supervision of the Society.

The children had been apprehended following concerns about neglect, lack of supervision, and exposure to domestic violence involving the mother’s partner.

Evidence showed a history of domestic violence, inconsistent statements by the mother to police and the court, and indications she intended to resume a relationship with the abusive partner despite a non-contact order.

Applying s. 51(2)(c) and (3) of the Child and Family Services Act, the court found reasonable grounds to believe the children faced a risk of harm if returned to the mother.

The motion was dismissed as the children could not be adequately protected in her care at that time.

In a high-conflict family law matter spanning nearly nine years, the applicant sought to dismiss the respondent’s motion to change a final support order and to prohibit him from bringing further motions due to alleged non-disclosure and unpaid costs orders.

The court reviewed extensive procedural history and disclosure disputes.

It held that while disclosure obligations are fundamental, requests must be proportionate and relevant, and striking pleadings or dismissing motions for non-disclosure is an exceptional remedy.

The court found that many disclosure requests were irrelevant or previously ruled unnecessary and that both parties contributed to delay.

Instead of dismissing the motion, the court ordered targeted disclosure from both parties and directed the matter toward a prompt hearing on the merits.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking custody of the parties’ teenage child and related relief, including school registration and appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The evidence demonstrated significant emotional distress experienced by the child, including panic attacks, hospitalization after ingesting medication, and ongoing counselling.

The child had expressed a strong and consistent desire to reside with the father and had experienced conflict with the mother in the existing residential arrangement.

The court held that the child’s well-being was paramount and that the evidentiary record supported immediate interim relief.

The child was ordered to reside temporarily with the father without prejudice, the Office of the Children’s Lawyer was appointed, and related directions were made regarding schooling, therapy, and procedural steps.

Emergency family law motions were brought by separated spouses concerning temporary care of a young child and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home prior to a case conference.

The court considered competing allegations of abuse, the involvement of the local children’s aid society, and the parties’ limited financial circumstances.

Finding the evidence insufficient to grant temporary custody or exclusive possession to either party, the court ordered an interim week‑about “nesting” arrangement in which the child would remain in the matrimonial home while the parents alternated residence.

The court also directed the parties to mediation and scheduled a case conference.

Issues of support and household expenses were deferred pending financial disclosure.

In a high‑conflict family law motion, the applicant sought temporary custody orders and relief relating to the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found evidence that the respondent had interfered with the applicant’s court‑ordered access and had failed to cooperate with the Office of the Children’s Lawyer investigation.

The court declined to grant temporary custody but ordered the re‑appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and maintained the existing access order while warning that custody could be reconsidered depending on future conduct.

Regarding property, the court ordered steps to facilitate the sale of the matrimonial home, authorized the applicant to undertake staging work up to $10,000, dispensed with the respondent’s consent to the sale, and directed that sale proceeds be held in trust pending further order.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary order governing access to the parties’ infant child by seeking expanded parenting time, including additional overnight access and earlier commencement of weekend visits.

The applicant mother opposed the timing of expanded overnight access, arguing that any increase should occur more gradually.

The court considered the child’s best interests and the evidentiary record, which included allegations between the parties and multiple police and child protection contacts that produced no substantiated concerns.

The court concluded that expanded parenting time with the father was appropriate but that immediate Friday overnight access would be premature.

The order was varied to introduce midweek overnight access and delayed commencement of alternating weekend access beginning on Fridays.