David A. Jarvis

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.

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.

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.

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.

In a motion to change a final spousal support order, both parties brought competing motions seeking further financial disclosure.

The court reiterated the fundamental family law principle of full and ongoing financial disclosure and emphasized proportionality in assessing relevance.

Several disclosure requests concerning employment records, banking transactions, credit card statements, and alleged interests in assets held with a parent were considered.

The court partially granted each party’s requests, ordering additional targeted disclosure including authorizations for financial records and an affidavit regarding ownership of a cottage property, while dismissing other requests as irrelevant or disproportionate.

The parties separated after an 11-year marriage with two young children.

The father sought joint custody and equal parenting time, while the mother sought sole custody, citing concerns about the father's mental health, volatile temper, and lack of historical involvement in the children's care.

The court admitted expert psychological evidence indicating the father did not suffer from a mental illness.

However, applying the principles for joint custody, the court found the parents lacked the necessary communication and cooperation.

The mother was granted sole custody as she had been the primary caregiver and demonstrated better insight into the children's needs.

The court also resolved equalization of net family property and ordered the father to pay child support.

The applicant wife brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached with the respondent husband regarding their family law dispute.

Following a settlement meeting, counsel exchanged emails confirming an agreement on all issues, subject only to a formal appraisal of the matrimonial home.

After the appraisal resulted in a lower equalization payment to the husband than he anticipated, and following his subsequent loss of employment, he refused to sign the revised Minutes of Settlement.

The court found that a binding settlement had been reached and that the husband's job loss did not vitiate the agreement, granting the motion to enforce the settlement.

The applicant wife moved to strike the respondent husband's pleadings for failure to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The husband brought a cross-motion for leave to file his Answer late, claiming a cognitive disability caused his delay, though he provided no credible medical evidence.

The court found the husband had made significant but incomplete disclosure.

Applying the principles of proportionality and the caution against striking pleadings in family law cases involving continuing obligations, the court granted the husband's motion for leave to file his Answer on strict terms and adjourned the wife's motion to strike.

Competing family law motions arose after the death of a spouse during unresolved divorce proceedings involving a challenged marriage contract, equalization, and support claims.

The estate trustee sought security for costs and disclosure, while the surviving spouse sought preservation of former matrimonial home sale proceeds and orders relating to inventory and valuation of property and business interests.

The court held that security for costs was not justified under Rule 24(13) because there was insufficient evidence that the claims were a waste of time or a nuisance, despite concerns about the spouse’s asset transfers and lack of assets in Ontario.

The court instead made detailed disclosure and case-management directions, ordered a business valuator selection process funded from sale proceeds held in trust, and reserved costs.

In this family law costs decision, a corporate respondent sought costs after obtaining dismissal of the application against it on a motion akin to summary judgment.

The court held that the applicant's pleadings disclosed no cause of action against the corporation and that its continued joinder and compelled participation were unreasonable, but also found the corporate respondent overreached by seeking a dismissal that would effectively bar future properly pleaded claims.

Applying the Family Law Rules costs framework, the court treated success on the motions as divided and rejected full recovery.

Partial recovery costs of $9,850 plus HST were awarded, payable within 90 days.

This was a family costs decision arising from an application to review child support despite a separation agreement requiring mediation first and then arbitration for reviewable disputes.

Both parties ignored the mandatory dispute resolution process without a written amendment to the agreement, and neither side achieved success on the merits in court.

The court held that Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules did not apply and that, while Rule 24 presumptively favours a successful party, there was no successful party here.

Taking into account the parties' unreasonable decision to litigate and the absence of costs endorsements at the case conferences, the court awarded the respondent wife limited all-inclusive costs.

The respondent husband brought a motion to set aside portions of an earlier judgment relating to equalization, property division, and obligations concerning the matrimonial home.

The prior judgment followed an uncontested trial after the husband repeatedly failed to comply with court‑ordered financial disclosure despite explicit warnings that non‑compliance would permit the wife to proceed without him.

The husband relied on alleged health issues, financial hardship, and potential factual disputes affecting the equalization calculation.

The court held that the evidence did not justify invoking Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules or the court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Because the information relied upon by the husband was available to him earlier and his persistent non‑compliance demonstrated a lack of diligence, the motion to set aside the order was dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured in a collision with a municipal employee on a public skating rink.

The plaintiff pleaded that the employee skated backwards into him, while the defendants pleaded that the employee stopped suddenly.

The trial judge found the employee negligent for stopping suddenly, but later set aside his own judgment because the plaintiff had not pleaded the sudden stop.

On appeal, the Divisional Court restored the original judgment, holding that the defendants were not prejudiced as they had raised the sudden stop in their own statement of defence.

The Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation sought judicial review of several Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decisions.

The OLRB had certified a union for employees at a casino located on the First Nation's reserve.

The First Nation subsequently passed its own Labour Relations Code and argued that it superseded the provincial Labour Relations Act, 1995, based on aboriginal and treaty rights under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, upholding the OLRB's findings that it had jurisdiction to decide the constitutional question and that the First Nation failed to establish an aboriginal or treaty right to regulate labour relations.

The court also found that the OLRB's procedural rulings were not patently unreasonable.

Following a successful appeal that certified the action as a class proceeding, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The appellants sought $186,293.81 on a partial indemnity basis, while the respondent suggested a range of $30,000 to $60,000.

Applying the principles of fairness and reasonableness, and considering awards in similar actions, the Divisional Court fixed the appellants' costs at $60,000 plus disbursements and GST, payable if the plaintiffs are successful in the pending appeal before the Court of Appeal.