David Winnitoy

The respondent father brought a motion to terminate interim child and spousal support, arguing the adult child was no longer a child of the marriage and the maximum duration for spousal support had expired.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion for interim disbursements to fund her litigation.

The court declined to adopt a previous arbitrator's negative credibility findings against the mother.

The court dismissed the motion to terminate support, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the child's sickle cell disease and the father's unverified corporate income, and noting the father lacked clean hands due to support arrears.

The court granted the mother's cross-motion, ordering the father to pay $100,000 in interim disbursements to level the playing field.

The applicant wife sought an advance of $150,000 for interim costs and disbursements under r. 24(18) of the Family Law Rules to fund a bifurcated trial regarding the validity of an amending agreement to a marriage contract.

The amending agreement, signed weeks prior to separation, left the applicant with no property or support after nine years of cohabitation.

The court found the applicant's claim to set aside the agreement meritorious and ordered the respondent husband to advance $40,000 to fund the first part of the bifurcated trial.

The applicant sought costs of $20,000 following a motion for disclosure where success was divided, and the respondent's cross-motion for bifurcation was dismissed.

The respondent proposed costs of $7,500 payable in the cause.

The court declined to order costs in the cause, noting that bifurcation is a process, not an outcome.

After considering the factors under Rule 24(11), the lack of offers to settle, and the litigation conduct of both parties, the court awarded the applicant costs of $8,000 plus HST.

Following a motion to change spousal support where support was ordered to step down over three years, both parties sought costs.

The moving party (former husband) had sought immediate termination, while the responding party (former wife) had offered a step-down over seven years or a lump sum.

The court found the responding party was the successful party as she delayed termination for three years, whereas the moving party was inflexible in demanding immediate termination.

The court awarded the responding party costs of $4,500, taking into account her partial success and her offer to settle.

A child protection agency brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that a newborn child was in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship without access under the Child and Family Services Act.

The agency relied on extensive findings from earlier proceedings in which four older siblings had been removed from the parents due to serious protection concerns, including inflicted injuries, failure to thrive, and inability of the father to protect the children.

The parents relied primarily on a psychological assessment suggesting some potential for improvement but did not provide evidence of rehabilitation, counselling, or parenting programs.

The court held that the report did not raise a triable issue capable of rebutting the strong prima facie case arising from the parents’ past conduct.

The child was found to be in need of protection and made a Crown ward without access, as the parents failed to demonstrate that access would be beneficial and meaningful or consistent with the child’s permanency planning.

The applicant society sought an order for Crown wardship without access for an 11-year-old child who had been in care for over 38 months.

The respondent mother withdrew from the trial and abandoned her claim for access.

The court found the child could not be safely returned to the mother due to her ongoing substance abuse, domestic violence issues, and failure to engage in services.

The court ordered Crown wardship without access, finding that access would not be beneficial and would impair the child's opportunities for adoption.