David A. Jarvis

The parties brought competing motions regarding the matrimonial home, with the applicant mother seeking exclusive possession and the respondent father seeking a nesting order.

The court found a significant level of toxicity and conflict between the parents, making a nesting arrangement inappropriate.

The mother was granted temporary exclusive possession of the home, as she was better able to shield the children from conflict and the father had alternative accommodation available.

The mother was also permitted to restructure the mortgage, and no spousal or child support was ordered at this time.

Following the dismissal of the mother's urgent motion regarding the children's school attendance, the successful father sought costs of $4,405.70.

The mother argued each party should bear their own costs or that the father's claim should be reduced.

Both parties had served offers to settle under Rule 18.

The court found the father was entitled to costs and that his lawyer's hourly rates were reasonable.

Considering Family Law Rules 18 and 24, the court awarded the father costs of $3,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The respondent mother brought a motion to vary an existing access order to allow the four-year-old child to attend full-time junior kindergarten, and for further financial and medical disclosure from the applicant father.

The father brought a cross-motion regarding access.

The court varied the access schedule to accommodate the child's full-time attendance at junior kindergarten while ensuring regular contact with the father.

The court ordered the father to provide the requested financial disclosure but dismissed the mother's request for the father's unredacted medical records, finding they were not necessary for the determination of the issues.

The respondent husband was successful on a motion for disclosure against the applicant wife and sought costs of up to $11,208.57.

Neither party had delivered an offer to settle the motion itself, though both had made comprehensive offers to settle the broader issues.

The court found the wife had not acted reasonably regarding disclosure, but noted the husband's claimed hourly rates were somewhat excessive and some clerical tasks were not properly recoverable.

The court fixed costs payable by the wife to the husband at $6,000, noting a higher award would likely have been made had the husband served an offer to settle the motion.

The applicant brought a motion for directions regarding an access protocol, which the parties resolved on consent.

The issue of costs was reserved to be addressed after a settlement conference.

As the settlement conference was not concluded and was rescheduled, the court directed that the costs issue remain reserved until the conference is completed.

The court declined to determine costs at this time, encouraging the parties to resolve it as part of an overall settlement.

The respondent husband was successful on a motion for disclosure and sought costs.

The applicant wife, who was self-represented, failed to make an offer to settle or provide costs submissions.

Applying the Family Law Rules and the principles from Serra v. Serra, the court emphasized that litigants of modest means must still act reasonably and attempt settlement.

The court awarded the husband $6,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following a ruling on motions by both parties involving custody and child support, the parties were unable to resolve the issue of costs.

Both parties had delivered Rule 18 offers to settle.

The court found that success on the principal issues of child support and parenting was divided.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

In a high-net-worth family law dispute, both parties brought motions.

The respondent wife sought interim support, interim disbursements, further financial disclosure, and an order striking the applicant husband's pleadings for non-compliance with a prior order.

The husband sought to vary the prior order.

The court found the husband's financial evidence evasive and imputed income based on his historical lifestyle funded by alleged loans from his father.

The court ordered the husband to pay $50,000 per month in uncharacterized interim support and to provide the requested corporate disclosure.

The court declined to strike the husband's pleadings immediately but imposed a strict deadline for compliance, and dismissed the wife's request for interim disbursements without prejudice.

The Children and Family Services of York Region (Society) withdrew a protection application.

The parents (respondents in the protection proceedings) sought costs against the Society, alleging failures in investigation, reassessment, and fair conduct, particularly regarding disclosure delays and the Society's failure to obtain critical records.

The court found that while the Society's initial decision to apprehend was reasonable given concurrent criminal charges and interviews, there were inexcusable delays in disclosure and non-compliance with court orders.

The court awarded the parents $1,373.47 in costs, comprising $1,000 for disclosure failures and $373.47 for the cost of obtaining the Children's Aid Society of Toronto (CAST) file.

This ruling addresses costs following a four-day trial in a family law matter.

The mother sought costs and pre-judgment interest, while the father claimed to be the more successful party.

The court found the mother was overall more successful, particularly on child support income and property issues.

The father's conduct was deemed unreasonable, including lack of credibility, failure to provide disclosure, dishonest reporting, and disobeying a court order.

Applying Family Law Rules 18 and 24, the court awarded the mother $30,000 in fees and $2,000 in disbursements.

Pre-judgment interest of $2,500 was also awarded, considering the father's unreasonable conduct and retention of properties.

The final award was $34,500 plus HST, with a portion enforceable as a support order.

The applicant sought exclusive possession of a Florida residential property, claiming the respondent held her joint interest in trust for him due to unjust enrichment.

The court found both parties lacked credibility, but based on consistent evidence, determined the property was purchased jointly from joint funds with equal contributions.

The applicant failed to prove a resulting trust or unjust enrichment.

The court also noted potential jurisdictional issues regarding foreign realty and dismissed the applicant's claim.

No costs were awarded due to both parties' conduct and deceit.

The respondent father brought a motion for a nesting arrangement for the parties' four-year-old child.

The applicant mother opposed and cross-moved for primary care and limited contact, also seeking an adjournment which was denied due to the toxic home environment.

The court found the mother's conduct unsupportive of the child's relationship with the father, citing her accusatory communications and breach of a prior order regarding video-taping.

The father's proposed nesting arrangement was granted, effective immediately, and the mother's cross-motion for primary care was adjourned.

The issue of the mother's contempt for breaching a court order was referred for further directions.

The applicant sought to garnish the respondent's Retirement Compensation Arrangement (RCA) to enforce a substantial judgment for equalization, support, and costs.

The respondent disputed the garnishment, asserting the RCA was exempt under the Pension Benefits Act.

The court held that the RCA, as defined by subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act, constituted a "prescribed" pension plan under section 47(3) of Regulation 909 of the Pension Benefits Act, thereby rendering it not exempt from garnishment.

The respondent's dispute was dismissed.

The applicant mother sought to vary child support and special expenses for the parties' son, SA, based on a material change in circumstances since their 2009 Separation Agreement.

The respondent father disputed the extent of his obligations and sought proportional sharing of private school expenses.

The court found a material change in circumstances but declined to vary the basic child support amount of $810 per month, leaving income determination for trial due to the father's opaque financial disclosure.

The court ordered the parties to share SA's private school expenses proportionally (mother 47%, father 58%) from October 1, 2016, based on their respective incomes of $80,000 and $91,500.

Claims for other extracurricular activities not defined as special or extraordinary expenses in the Agreement or Guidelines were dismissed.

This ruling addresses costs related to motions for temporary relief in a family law matter.

The applicant (wife) sought income attribution, child support, spousal support, disclosure, and life insurance.

The respondent (husband) sought disclosure and insurance security.

The court found a mixed outcome, attributing a lower income to the husband than sought by the wife, ordering child support, denying spousal support, and granting disclosure and life insurance.

Both parties were found to have unreported income and incurred significant legal costs disproportionate to their limited resources.

Despite mixed success, the wife was deemed the overall successful party, but due to the disparity between her claims and the orders, and the absence of an offer to settle, she was awarded only token costs.

This trial decision addresses financial issues arising from a marital breakdown, including equalization of net family properties, child support, spousal support, and retroactive support claims.

While custody was resolved, the court determined the equalization payment owed by the husband to the wife, established the parties' qualifying incomes for support purposes, and assessed the wife's entitlement to spousal support, including whether income should be imputed to her.

The court largely dismissed the wife's substantial claim for retroactive spousal support due to the payor's financial hardship and the claimant's insufficient efforts towards self-sufficiency, but awarded adjusted retroactive child support based on the payor's actual income.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after a high-conflict marriage.

The mother sought sole custody of their two children, while the father sought joint custody and shared parenting.

The court found that the parents' inability to communicate and cooperate ruled out joint custody or parallel parenting.

The mother was granted sole custody and final decision-making authority, as she had demonstrated a more child-focused approach to the children's medical and academic needs.

The father's access was expanded to include more meaningful time, and he was ordered to pay child support based on the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

This family law trial addressed a mother's request to relocate with her child, custody arrangements, and child and spousal support.

The court denied the mother's request to move the child's residence more than 100 km from the father, finding it not in the child's best interests due to significant health challenges and the impact on the child's relationship with the father and extended family.

The mother was granted sole custody, with a detailed parenting schedule for the father.

The court ordered the father to pay child support arrears and ongoing support, but dismissed the mother's claim for spousal support, concluding that the parties' relationship, despite having a child, lacked the economic interdependency required for cohabitation under the Family Law Act.

The court also expressed concerns about the Children's Aid Society's investigation process and the tactical use of its involvement by both parents.

In supplementary reasons following a summary judgment for Crown wardship, the court revised its order to reflect that the parties' consent to finding the children in need of protection applied only to sections 37(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

The mother's motion to adjourn the access trial was dismissed.

The access trial did not proceed as the parties filed a consent resolving the issue.

The mother sought to relocate with the parties' six-year-old child from Midland to Whitby after losing her job, retraining as a personal support worker, and finding better-paying employment in the Durham region.

The father, who had shared parenting under a previous order, opposed the move and sought primary residence.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz factors, the court found the move was an economic imperative for the mother and in the child's best interests.

The court granted joint custody, permitted the relocation, established a new parenting schedule, and temporarily suspended the father's child support obligations to allow him to pay off fines and regain his driver's licence.