David Paul Olsen

Following an eleven‑day family trial concerning custody, access, mobility, and child support, the court addressed a dispute arising from the mother's relocation from Kitchener to Wasaga Beach with the parties’ child.

The father sought primary residence and termination of his support obligations, while the mother sought permission to relocate and retroactive child support.

Applying the best interests test from Gordon v. Goertz, the court held the relocation was permissible and that the mother would retain primary residence, with expanded access to the father.

The court also found the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to disclose income increases and ordered substantial retroactive child support.

Ongoing support was recalculated based on imputed income reflecting corporate dividends and income splitting.

Following a lengthy family law trial involving disputes over custody and equalization, the court addressed outstanding costs issues.

The court found that neither party was entirely successful at trial and that both parties engaged in unreasonable conduct that prolonged the litigation and increased costs.

As a result, neither party was awarded costs of the trial itself.

However, the respondent was ordered to pay $8,000 relating to a specific phase of the litigation arising from earlier proceedings, reflecting responsibility for certain decisions that generated additional costs.

The amount was ordered payable by set-off against the respondent’s spousal support entitlement.

Following extensive family litigation concerning custody and related relief, the applicant brought a motion seeking costs personally against opposing counsel and their law firm under Family Law Rule 24(9), alleging their litigation conduct unnecessarily caused costs to be incurred.

The court reviewed the lawyers’ conduct, including commencing proceedings in the wrong jurisdiction, failing to properly serve court orders, bringing urgent motions on short notice, filing repetitive affidavits, and making inaccurate representations to the court.

Applying the principles governing personal cost awards against lawyers, including the caution articulated in Young v. Young, the court concluded that the conduct of counsel and their firm unnecessarily caused costs to be incurred and warranted censure.

The court held that Family Law Rule 24(9) adequately addressed the circumstances and that the conduct constituted “fault” resulting in wasted costs.

Personal costs orders were imposed against the firm and two lawyers for amounts reflecting only the unnecessary costs directly attributable to their conduct.

The applicant father sought joint custody and a name change for the parties' six-year-old daughter.

The respondent mother sought sole custody.

The parties were never married and separated before the child's birth.

The court found a history of poor communication, high conflict, and instability on the part of the father.

Applying the best interests of the child test and the principles regarding joint custody, the court concluded that joint custody was inappropriate.

The mother was awarded sole custody, the father was granted specified access, and the request for a name change was denied.

The respondent husband brought a motion to set aside a final divorce order obtained on default after he failed to file an answer and financial statement within extended deadlines.

The court considered whether the delay, the indulgences granted by opposing counsel, and post-deadline discussions affected the validity of the default.

Balancing the principle of finality against the preference for determining disputes on their merits, the court held that the merits should prevail, particularly given the ongoing nature of support obligations.

The equalization order was set aside, but several other provisions of the divorce order were maintained as interim orders pending trial.

The moving party was ordered to promptly file financial disclosure and pay costs of the motion.