Deborah Lee Ditchfield

An appeal and cross-appeal concerning a family law matter involving a teenager who left his adoptive parents' home to live with the parents of his girlfriend.

The original applicants (the girlfriend's parents) sought decision-making authority and child support from the adoptive parents.

The lower court found the applicants lacked standing as "parents" under the Family Law Act but appointed them as litigation guardians without compliance with procedural requirements.

The appellate court upheld the finding of no standing but found the appointment of litigation guardians was made without jurisdiction, as the applicants had not complied with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the application and set aside the litigation guardian appointment, while permitting the now-adult child to pursue retroactive support independently.

The applicant mother sought to change the surnames of her two young children from the father's surname to her own, or a hyphenated surname, and to add a forename, relying on a temporary decision-making order.

The respondent father opposed, seeking to continue a stay on the name change applications until a final determination at trial.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that "lawful custody" under the Change of Name Act should not be interpreted as temporary decision-making responsibility for the purpose of unilaterally changing a child's name.

The court emphasized that name changes are significant incidents of custody requiring careful consideration of the child's best interests at a final hearing, not based on a temporary order or a parent's personal feelings.

The respondent's motion to stay the name change applications was granted in part, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs.

The applicant mother sought an order declaring the respondent father a vexatious litigant under s. 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, prohibiting him from instituting or continuing proceedings without leave.

The father opposed this and brought a cross-motion to extend time to perfect his appeal from a previous order dismissing his motion to change.

The court found the father had persistently conducted proceedings vexatiously, citing his unreasonable litigation approach, voluminous materials, and failure to pay substantial costs.

The court declared the father a vexatious litigant and ordered that he require leave for any future proceedings.

The father's motion to extend time to perfect his appeal was dismissed due to the overwhelming prejudice to the mother from outstanding costs and the lack of compelling merits in the appeal.

This is a costs decision arising from the court's judgment of March 25, 2019, in a family law matter involving a motion to amend pleadings and a motion for summary judgment.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs, arguing he was the successful party and had made reasonable settlement offers.

The applicant argued there should be no costs order due to divided success.

The court found divided success existed because although the respondent was somewhat more successful overall, the applicant succeeded on her motion to amend her response to the motion to change.

The court awarded costs of $2,500 payable by the applicant to the respondent, declining to enforce the award through the Family Responsibility Office.

The Applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis due to the Respondent's unreasonable or bad faith conduct in financial disclosure during a family law proceeding that had settled by consent order.

The Respondent argued for parties to bear their own costs or for him to receive partial indemnity.

The court found the Respondent's conduct regarding disclosure to be unreasonable, though not in bad faith, as he was inattentive to his duty to make full and fair disclosure.

This unreasonable conduct was deemed to trump any success the Respondent might have had in the underlying litigation.

The court also addressed the retrospective application of changes to the Family Law Rules concerning costs and the principles governing "costs thrown away." The Applicant was awarded costs on a substantial recovery basis.

This is a costs endorsement following a partial appeal in a family law matter.

The appellant was successful in reducing the quantum of spousal support on appeal but was wholly unsuccessful on the equalization payment issue and failed on several other grounds relating to spousal support.

The court affirmed the trial costs and awarded the appellant partial costs of the appeal in a fixed sum, reflecting his limited success.

Appeal from a trial judgment in a family law matter arising from a 40-year marriage.

The trial judge ordered an equalization payment of $140,000 from the wife to the husband, dismissed the wife's claim for an unequal division of net family property, and awarded costs of $109,248 to the husband.

The wife appealed on three grounds: rejection of her expert evidence regarding farm equipment valuation, failure to award an unequal share of net family property based on alleged reckless depletion, and the quantum of costs awarded.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's treatment of expert evidence, his analysis of the net family property claim, or his costs award.

The respondents brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of a grandmother’s application for access to her grandchildren under s. 21(1) of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The court considered the best interests of the children under s. 24 of the Act, including the nature of the historical relationship between the grandmother and the children, the present circumstances of the family, and the status quo after several years without contact.

Even accepting the applicant’s characterization of the prior relationship, the court found it to be an ordinary grandparent relationship and not one warranting court‑ordered access.

Given the intense conflict between the adults and the children’s stable and thriving circumstances, ordering access would place the children in the middle of ongoing hostility.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary judgment dismissing the application.

Following an 11‑day family law trial primarily concerning ownership of a barn and chicken production quotas registered in the respondent’s name, the court determined costs.

The respondent had been successful on the principal property issues, which drove the length and expense of the litigation, while the applicant had advanced a hard-line position seeking ownership of those assets.

The court considered Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and assessed the parties’ conduct, complexity of issues, time spent, and reasonableness of positions.

Although the respondent sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $233,000, the court limited recovery to partial indemnity due to non‑compliance with Rule 18 concerning offers to settle.

After reducing certain legal accounts for duplication of work, the court ordered the applicant to pay costs of $123,884.40.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent’s pleadings in a long-running family law proceeding involving property division and enforcement of court orders following separation.

The court reviewed numerous prior orders relating to the sale and refinancing of the matrimonial home and a rental property, as well as the respondent’s obligations to account for rental income and comply with court directions.

The evidence demonstrated repeated failures by the respondent to comply with orders, provide proper financial disclosure, vacate property as ordered, and bring a motion previously directed by the court.

The court found that the respondent had intentionally misled the court, obstructed the proceedings, and engaged in conduct amounting to abuse of process.

Applying Rule 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court concluded that the breaches were intentional and without reasonable excuse and struck the respondent’s pleadings.