David A. Jarvis

The respondent husband moved for the pre-trial sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The applicant wife opposed, citing concerns about the husband's finances, potential trauma to the children, and her desire to purchase his interest.

The court found compelling reasons for the sale, including the husband's prima facie right, the parties' inability to afford the home, and insufficient evidence of harm to the children.

The motion was granted, ordering the sale of the home, but providing the wife with an opportunity to purchase the husband's interest based on an appraisal, subject to specific financial adjustments and timelines.

The court also made interim child and spousal support orders.

This ruling addresses the costs arising from a successful motion for spousal support and other relief brought by the wife.

The wife, as the successful party, sought $10,000 in costs, while the husband proposed $2,500.

Neither party had made an Offer to Settle.

The court awarded the wife $5,000 in costs, inclusive of HST, emphasizing the importance of Offers to Settle in family law litigation and their impact on costs awards.

Following a ruling granting the respondent wife exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and temporary custody of the children, the court determined costs.

The wife had served an offer to settle, while the applicant husband had not.

The court emphasized the importance of offers to settle in family law proceedings, even for litigants of modest means.

The wife was awarded $12,500 in costs, to be paid from the husband's share of the net proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home or credited against any equalization payment.

In this family law costs ruling following a disclosure motion involving third parties, the successful moving party sought full recovery costs based on an offer to settle and alleged bad faith by the opposing parties.

The court held that the responding parties' conduct was unreasonable, but did not meet the high threshold for bad faith.

Applying Rules 24 and 18 of the Family Law Rules and the fair-and-reasonable costs approach, the court reduced the claimed amount because the materials and time spent were excessive and the matter was straightforward.

Costs were apportioned separately between the husband and the third party, with no joint and several liability.

In a family law costs ruling following earlier determinations that the parties had settled outstanding issues and that child support should be temporarily varied, the successful party sought full indemnity costs after an unaccepted offer to settle.

The court applied Rules 24 and 18 of the Family Law Rules, found the responding party acted unreasonably, and held he should have accepted the offer.

While the offer presumptively engaged full recovery consequences, the court moderated the result in light of the responding party's financial circumstances and partial later success on temporary child support relief.

Costs were awarded in the amount of $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, enforceable as a support order.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support, repayment of a $25,500 loan, and an order striking the respondent husband's pleadings for non-compliance with a disclosure order.

The parties separated after the wife discovered the husband's extramarital affairs.

The wife, who was injured when struck by a car driven by the husband, claimed she could not work and needed support.

The court ordered the husband to pay $5,000 per month in interim spousal support and to forthwith repay the $25,500 loan.

The court declined to strike the husband's pleadings but ordered him to provide an affidavit answering the outstanding disclosure requests.

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.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, multiple motions addressed parenting arrangements and access involving a child residing with the mother under supervision.

The child protection agency sought restrictions preventing the mother’s partner from contact with the child and proposed overnight access with the maternal grandmother.

The maternal grandmother moved for custody or, alternatively, expanded access.

The court found ongoing concerns regarding the mother’s judgment, including exposure of the child to domestic violence and disregard for prior court orders, but concluded that the mother should be given a final opportunity to demonstrate that the child’s safety would be prioritized.

The grandmother’s custody motion was adjourned while access was expanded to include weekly overnight visits and alternate weekend access.

The parties disputed whether a custody settlement reached through written proposals and communications was legally binding after the father refused to sign formal minutes of settlement.

The mother sought an order enforcing the agreement regarding joint custody, primary residence with the mother, and access with the father.

The court applied common law principles on settlement formation and held that an agreement is binding where essential terms are settled, even if a formal document is contemplated later.

The court found that the parties had agreed on the essential terms and that the father’s alleged condition regarding employment in Niagara Falls was not part of the agreement.

The settlement was enforced with a minor modification to the child’s return time after weekend access.

The applicant sought child and spousal support following the parties’ separation, along with related orders concerning health benefits and life insurance as security for support obligations.

The court determined the parties’ guideline incomes and rejected the respondent’s request to impute additional income to the applicant due to insufficient disclosure by the respondent and conflicting evidence regarding the applicant’s employment efforts.

Applying the principles governing effective notice from Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, the court ordered set-off child support payable by the respondent effective June 1, 2015.

The court declined to make spousal support retroactive due to unresolved financial issues, including potential debts and outstanding equalization.

A temporary order was issued addressing child support, spousal support prospectively, special expenses, tax claims, insurance security, and benefits coverage.

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.

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.

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.

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.