Deborah L. Chappel

This decision concerns the costs award following a 54-day family law trial.

The applicant, J.M.M., sought costs after being successful on all major issues, including parenting, child support, spousal support, and property.

The court awarded $150,000 in costs (inclusive of disbursements and HST), finding this amount fair and proportionate given the applicant’s success, the respondent’s unreasonable litigation conduct, and the respondent’s significant mental health and financial challenges.

The court structured payment terms to reflect the respondent’s limited means and designated a portion of the award as support, enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

This decision resolves a high-conflict family law dispute involving divorce, parenting, child support, spousal support, and property division.

The court grants the father sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the child, C.M.M., with the mother’s parenting time to be supervised due to longstanding concerns about her mental health and repeated unsubstantiated abuse allegations.

The mother is ordered to undergo psychiatric and psychological assessments, and her parenting time may be reviewed after December 1, 2026.

The court orders the mother to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, an equalization payment, and reimbursement for funds received from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The father is found to have fully satisfied his spousal support obligations.

The decision includes detailed analysis of the parties’ credibility, financial circumstances, and the best interests of the child.

The applicant father brought a motion to find the respondent mother in civil contempt for allegedly breaching parenting terms of a final order, including withholding the children and failing to provide notarized documents.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father failed to provide fair notice of several allegations, the parenting time terms regarding one child were ambiguous, and the mother had reasonable safety concerns justifying her temporary withholding of the children.

The court emphasized that contempt is a remedy of last resort and that the father should have pursued more appropriate, child-focused remedies.

The parties separated and the mother sought to restrict the father's parenting time to supervised visits, alleging a history of family violence, sexual abuse, and abduction risk.

The father sought unsupervised parenting time and a determination of his child support obligations based on his income earned in Nigeria, converted at a black market exchange rate, with a reduction for undue hardship due to travel costs.

The court found the mother's allegations of sexual abuse and abduction risk to be unsubstantiated and granted the father unsupervised regular and holiday parenting time.

For child support, the court rejected the black market exchange rate, applying the Receiver General of Canada rate instead.

Due to the father's failure to provide adequate financial disclosure and his intentional under-employment, the court imputed his income at $50,000.

The father's claim for undue hardship was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay $755 per month in child support.

The father sought costs following a 28-day trial regarding a Motion to Change Final Order and related motions.

The court found that the father was overwhelmingly successful on the parenting issues, which consumed 85% of the trial time, while the mother was successful on the child support issues.

The court concluded that the mother's conduct throughout the litigation, including her repeated unsubstantiated allegations of abuse and alienation of the child, amounted to bad faith.

The father was awarded full recovery costs for the parenting issues, offset by the mother's costs for the child support issues.

The court ordered the mother to pay $138,157 in costs, structured as a $50,000 lump sum payment with the balance to be set off against the father's child support arrears and ongoing child support obligations.

The parties separated after an 8.5-year marriage and resolved most issues, leaving only decision-making responsibility for their two children's health and education to be determined at trial.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, while the father sought joint decision-making, alternatively with a requirement to use a parenting coordinator with arbitration powers.

The court reviewed the extensive history of parental conflict, allegations of family violence, and the parties' difficulties in addressing one child's reading delays and the other's ADHD diagnosis.

The court held that it had jurisdiction under the Divorce Act to order parties to participate in the non-binding aspects of parenting coordination, but could not mandate binding arbitration without consent.

The court ordered a detailed framework requiring the parties to attempt to make health and education decisions jointly, including using a mediator or parenting coordinator if they reach an impasse.

However, if consensus still cannot be reached, the mother was granted final decision-making authority.

The mother brought a motion to change a final parenting order, seeking to restrict the father's parenting time to supervised visits based on numerous allegations of abuse and neglect.

The father sought a resumption of his parenting time, a declaration that the mother breached the existing order, and a retroactive reduction in child support.

Following a lengthy trial, the court found that the mother's allegations were unsubstantiated and that she had engaged in a pattern of parental alienation and family violence by repeatedly subjecting the child to medical and child protection investigations.

The court ordered a gradual resumption of the father's parenting time, progressing to alternate weekends and equal holiday time.

The court also ordered the mother to undergo a psychiatric assessment and engage in parenting coaching.

The father's claim for a retroactive reduction in child support was dismissed due to a lack of effective notice.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking the return of the 13-year-old child after the applicant mother unilaterally withheld the child following a visit.

The mother had exercised minimal parenting time over the previous six years.

The court initialized the names in the decision to protect the child's privacy.

Finding a material change in circumstances due to the mother's actions and lack of involvement, the court granted the father sole decision-making responsibility and ordered the immediate return of the child with police enforcement.

The mother's parenting time was suspended pending the completion of joint family counselling.

The Applicant sought a Section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act to evaluate the child's needs and the parties' ability to meet them, citing concerns about the child's sexualized behaviors, the Respondent's traumatic brain injury, and alleged family violence.

The Respondent opposed, arguing that previous investigations by child protection services and police had not substantiated the Applicant's concerns and that numerous professionals had already assessed the child.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed assessment was not necessary as sufficient evidence could be obtained from existing professionals and witnesses, and that the potential negative impacts on the child (intrusion, delay, cost) outweighed the limited benefits.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment in a status review application, seeking to place the child in the permanent care and custody of his great aunt and uncle.

The maternal grandmother, who previously had custody, opposed the motion and sought the child's return to her care.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the child continued to need protection due to the grandmother's unaddressed mental health challenges and delusional beliefs.

The court granted the society's motion, placing the child with the kin caregivers and ordering limited access for the grandmother via text communication.

The parties in a family law proceeding brought three motions.

The applicant sought leave to amend her application to add claims for spousal support and a declaration of beneficial ownership of a cottage lot, and an order dispensing with the respondent's consent to the sale of the matrimonial home and cottage property.

The respondent sought orders regarding the listing agent for the matrimonial home, delaying the sale of the cottage property, and disposing of business assets.

The court granted the applicant leave to amend her application regarding spousal support but adjourned the request regarding the trust claim for further argument.

The court dismissed the applicant's request to dispense with the respondent's consent to the sale of the properties.

The court ordered the applicant's choice of listing agent for the matrimonial home, adjourned the timing of the cottage sale, and ordered that the business assets remain on the premises until valued.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce a prior court order requiring the respondent to either reinstate her on his health benefits plan, provide independent confirmation of her ineligibility, or pay her $8,000.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant.

The court found that the respondent failed to provide the required independent confirmation to the applicant or her counsel by the court-ordered deadline.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the $8,000 forthwith, plus post-judgment interest.

The respondent's cross-motion was dismissed as the applicant's motion was successful and not vexatious.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's Motion to Change Final Order seeking child support for an adult child with a disability, the respondent sought full recovery costs of $40,903.17.

The court found the respondent was entirely successful and presumptively entitled to costs.

While the applicant's general claim was not unreasonable, her counsel advanced highly unreasonable arguments and litigation strategies that unnecessarily protracted the trial.

However, considering the applicant's limited financial means, the adult child's active resistance to disclosure, and the respondent's inappropriate behaviour during testimony, the court declined to award full recovery costs.

Costs were fixed at $8,000, payable at $150 per month.

The applicant sought to set aside the spousal support terms of a 2010 Minutes of Settlement and Consent on the grounds of uncertainty, duress, undue influence, and unconscionability, and sought retroactive spousal support.

The court found that the claims to set aside the agreement were not statute-barred.

However, the court dismissed the claims on their merits, finding no evidence of duress, undue influence, or unconscionability.

The court also declined to override the agreement under the Miglin framework, finding that the agreement substantially complied with the objectives of the Divorce Act.

The respondent was ordered to pay the outstanding balance of $8,780.00 owed under the Consent.

The applicant mother brought a Motion to Change a 2010 final order, seeking ongoing and retroactive child support for the parties' adult son, who suffers from mental health issues and receives ODSP benefits.

The court found that while a material change in circumstances occurred when the son's mental health deteriorated in 2010, the applicant failed to prove he remained unable to withdraw from her charge or obtain the necessaries of life as of 2015.

The court noted the son's ability to drive, manage a vehicle, and the lack of medical evidence proving an inability to work towards self-sufficiency.

The motion to change was dismissed.

The respondent mother brought a motion to reinstate her time-sharing with the child, D.J., as per an existing temporary order.

The applicant father had unilaterally suspended time-sharing due to concerns about D.J.'s vulnerability to COVID-19, given his special medical needs.

The court applied the "material change in circumstances" test under the Children's Law Reform Act and found that the COVID-19 pandemic, while serious, did not, by itself, constitute a material change justifying the suspension of in-person parenting time.

The court emphasized that general fears are insufficient and that each parent's ability to mitigate risks must be assessed.

Finding the respondent mother to be a responsible parent who was taking appropriate precautions, the court dismissed the applicant's position and ordered the immediate reinstatement of the respondent's time-sharing as per the original temporary order.

The Respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary parenting order, seeking increased parenting time and make-up time with the children, Abigail and Naomi, after the Applicant mother unilaterally suspended in-person contact due to concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic and the father's employment as an essential worker (bus driver).

The Applicant cross-moved, initially seeking to limit contact to virtual, then proposing limited outdoor visits.

The court found a manifest change in circumstances due to the pandemic and varied the existing order.

It granted the Applicant's alternative request for regular, limited daytime outdoor visits with strict safety conditions, denying the Respondent's request for extended overnight access.

The decision considered the children's best interests, their special needs, the mother's role as primary caregiver, and the health risks to medically fragile maternal grandparents residing with the children.

The payor father brought a motion to change a 2014 child support order, seeking to terminate support for his two adult children due to his terminal cancer diagnosis, job loss, and the children's ability to support themselves.

The recipient mother sought retroactive increases in support and contributions to post-secondary expenses.

The court found material changes in circumstances and allowed both retroactive claims to proceed.

The court ordered retroactive increases in the Table amount for 2015 and 2016, but reduced the payor's obligation starting June 2017 due to his decreased income and the children's receipt of CPP disability benefits and employment income.

The court terminated the payor's child support obligation entirely effective June 30, 2018, resulting in a final arrears balance of $1,363 owed to the mother.

The applicant and respondent disagreed on their date of separation, which was relevant to claims for divorce, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The applicant claimed the separation date was September 9, 2017, while the respondent claimed it was March 7, 2014.

The court conducted a trial on this discrete issue.

After reviewing the parties' living arrangements, financial affairs, and credibility, the court found the respondent's evidence more reliable.

The court concluded that the parties began living separate and apart on March 7, 2014, following a domestic incident, and that there was no reasonable prospect of resuming cohabitation after that date.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion to change a final spousal support order, the applicant sought costs.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful and had made a reasonable offer to settle that triggered full indemnity costs consequences under Rule 18(14).

The respondent's conduct in pursuing a meritless motion shortly after the final order was deemed highly unreasonable.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $6,302.00 and designated the award as a support order enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.