David Howard

Following a trial on parenting issues where the respondent mother was entirely successful, she sought costs of $13,217.06.

The applicant father opposed the costs, arguing the respondent's conduct was unreasonable and claiming financial hardship.

The court found the respondent was the successful party, had made multiple reasonable early offers to settle, and that her legal fees were highly reasonable.

Conversely, the court found the applicant's conduct unreasonable, noting he pursued aggressive and unsupported allegations at trial.

The court ordered the applicant to pay costs fixed at $13,000, representing close to full indemnity.

The father brought a motion to compel the mother to return to Ottawa with their two children or, alternatively, for primary residence.

The mother had relocated to Smith Falls without notice or consent, citing domestic violence and safety concerns.

The mother brought a cross-motion to remain in Smith Falls and reduce the father's parenting time.

The court found the mother was justified in moving without notice due to credible threats to her safety, exempting her from the notice requirements under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court ordered that the children's primary residence remain with the mother in Smith Falls, but dismissed the mother's request to reduce the father's weekend parenting time, maintaining the status quo.

In an uncontested family law trial, the applicant mother sought sole decision-making authority, primary residence, child support, spousal support, and division of property.

The parties have three children, two of whom have disabilities, with one requiring a life-support machine.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making authority and primary residence.

The respondent was ordered to pay ongoing child support, retroactive child support, a fixed monthly amount for Section 7 expenses, and ongoing spousal support.

The claim for pension division was deferred pending an expert valuation report.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to temporarily vary a final parenting order, seeking primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility for the parties' child.

Following the final order, the respondent mother experienced significant mental health issues, was involved with the Children's Aid Society, and faced criminal charges related to an assault on her partner.

The court found that exceptional circumstances existed requiring an immediate change to the parenting arrangements.

The motion was granted, placing the child in the father's primary care with supervised parenting time for the mother, and ordering the disclosure of the mother's medical and police records.

The mother brought a motion for an interim order granting her decision-making responsibility for the parties' seven-year-old child's health, specifically to obtain the MMR and COVID-19 vaccines.

The father opposed the vaccinations, citing his own autoimmune disorder and general skepticism of vaccines.

The court took judicial notice of government health advisories regarding the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act, the court granted the mother interim decision-making responsibility for health and vaccinations, subject to consultation with the child's physician regarding the father's medical history.

The applicants brought a motion to find the respondent in contempt for failing to comply with a 2017 access order regarding the children.

The respondent admitted to withholding access because the applicants would not agree to her additional conditions, which were not part of the original order.

The court declined to make a finding of contempt, exercising its discretion as the respondent mistakenly believed an agreement was in place.

However, the court ordered a specific schedule for the resumption of access and included a police enforcement clause to ensure future compliance.

This case involved a divorce and a claim for non-compensatory spousal support by the respondent (husband) against the applicant (wife) after a 42-year cohabitation.

The parties had lived financially separate lives for the latter 18 years of their relationship, acting more as "roommates" with limited shared expenses.

The court granted the divorce and found the respondent entitled to transitional spousal support, but at a significantly lower amount and for a limited duration than he sought.

The judge rejected the respondent's proposed budget as unrealistic and found his decision to retain a large matrimonial home unreasonable, emphasizing that the support should reflect the actual shared standard of living during the period of financial separation.

The accused, Barou Mbuyamba, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained on tertiary grounds following an initial bail hearing.

The accused was charged with 69 counts related to importing and possessing firearms and prohibited devices.

The review considered whether there was an error of law or a material change in circumstances, specifically the introduction of an electronic monitoring plan and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the new electronic monitoring plan and the accused's 41 days in custody.

Applying a flexible approach to the Palmer test, the court reassessed the bail on secondary and tertiary grounds.

Despite the seriousness of the charges, the court found the proposed release plan, including a strong residential surety, house arrest, and electronic monitoring, sufficient to address tertiary ground concerns, and that detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused was released on a recognizance with conditions.

The applicant mother brought a motion for a temporary order of sole custody and primary residence of the parties' two children, or alternatively a parenting assessment.

The respondent father sought joint custody or no order as to custody, maintaining the existing 2-2-3 shared parenting schedule.

The court noted the conflicting affidavit evidence and the challenges of making temporary custody orders without a full trial or assessment.

Finding no compelling reason to alter the status quo, the court made no order for custody, directed the 2-2-3 schedule to continue, and ordered a joint parenting assessment.

Temporary child and spousal support were also ordered on consent.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order to allow for temporary unsupervised access to his 10-year-old son.

The child had recently begun refusing to attend supervised access visits at an access centre.

The court found that the child's refusal to attend constituted a material change in circumstances.

However, the court dismissed the request for unsupervised access, finding it was not in the child's best interests given his health issues and the lack of recent contact.

Instead, the court ordered supervised access to resume in the community with the assistance of the father's brothers, and requested the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

This costs endorsement followed a temporary motion heard on August 29, 2018.

The motion addressed the respondent's request to adjust mid-week access and for a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act, and the applicant's issue regarding child care expenses.

The court found the applicant's refusal to accommodate access changes unreasonable, but also deemed the respondent's request for a section 30 assessment unreasonable given the recent final settlement.

The child care costs issue was resolved in the respondent's favour.

Both parties sought costs.

Considering the factors outlined in the Family Law Rules, the specific sequence of events, the parties' positions, and the outcome of the motion, the court determined that there should be no order respecting costs.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order regarding parenting time for their son and sought a needs assessment under section 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The applicant mother opposed these requests and sought sole custody, reduced parenting time for the father, or permission to relocate to Florida.

The court granted the father's request to alter mid-week access due to a material change in his work schedule, replacing two daytime visits with a weekly overnight visit.

The request for a section 30 assessment was dismissed as the parenting regime was recently agreed upon and the situation was not materially different.

The court also clarified daycare expense sharing, finding the applicant was not entitled to a credit for the respondent's delay in applying for a subsidy, and ordered the respondent to pay a small outstanding amount.

The main proceeding was scheduled for trial.

The Applicant sought spousal support, insurance on support, and validation of a Cohabitation Agreement.

The Respondent sought to set aside the Cohabitation Agreement due to alleged lack of understanding, insufficient financial disclosure, and unfairness, and also claimed a constructive trust over the Applicant's home.

The court upheld the Cohabitation Agreement, finding the Respondent's evidence regarding lack of understanding, disclosure, and duress to be incredible.

The claim for constructive trust was dismissed as it was barred by the Agreement.

The court declined to order spousal support for the Applicant, noting her financial circumstances and the Respondent's obligations under the upheld agreement.