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 costs on a substantial indemnity basis following her successful application to declare the respondent father a vexatious litigant and his unsuccessful motion to extend the time to perfect an appeal.

The mother argued that the father's bad conduct in previous proceedings justified an elevated scale of costs.

The court rejected this argument, holding that conduct in prior proceedings cannot be used to punish a party in the current proceeding.

Costs were awarded to the mother on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $15,181.07, based on the principles of proportionality and reasonableness.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order and a costs order made by the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded on the leave motion.

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.

The applicant and respondent separated in 2015 and sought a divorce, parenting orders, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the respondent engaged in a campaign of parental alienation, repeatedly breaching court orders and undermining the applicant's relationship with the children.

The applicant was granted decision-making responsibility and a parenting schedule, while the respondent was found in contempt of court.

No retroactive or ongoing Guideline child support was ordered, but the parties were ordered to share special expenses equally.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $62,250.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order requiring him to disclose certain information.

He had also brought a separate motion before the motion judge to correct a mistake in the same order pursuant to rule 25(19)(b) of the Family Law Rules.

The Divisional Court held that the leave to appeal motion was premature and adjourned it until the motion to correct the order was decided and finalized.

The parties are parents of a child.

The respondent father previously initiated a Motion to Change seeking unsupervised access and reduced child support, which was ultimately withdrawn with a consent order for no access and increased support.

The remaining issues of enforcement of prior court orders regarding joint debts and costs proceeded to a trial of an issue.

The court granted judgment to the applicant mother for $1,700 for payments made on a joint student line of credit and awarded her $43,000 in costs for the Motion to Change, with $25,000 enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.

The court determined the costs of an appeal and related motions in a family law matter.

The respondent/appellant was successful on the appeal and sought costs of over $42,000.

The applicant/respondent in appeal argued she should not pay costs due to financial disparity and the impact on their child.

The court found the applicant's litigation conduct unreasonable but held the respondent's claimed costs were disproportionate to the amount at stake.

Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court fixed costs at $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The moving party sought an extension of time to bring a motion for leave to appeal an order requiring him to produce corporate financial disclosure and pay costs in a family law proceeding.

The responding party opposed the extension, arguing the moving party lacked a firm intention to appeal and was simultaneously pursuing a motion to change the order.

The court applied the four-part test for extending time and found that the moving party had formed a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, there was no prejudice to the responding party, the delay was explained by a change of counsel, and the proposed appeal had some merit.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.

The moving party father sought to vary a 2017 child support order due to a loss of employment and one child ceasing to be a dependent.

The responding party mother conceded the material changes in circumstances.

The court recalculated the father's child support obligations for 2018, 2019, and ongoing for 2020 based on his reduced income.

The court fixed the child support arrears at $3,870.84 and ordered the father to pay $1,500 for previously ordered section 7 orthodontic expenses, dismissing the mother's other section 7 claims.

The appellant father appealed a costs order made following a summary judgment motion that dismissed the respondent mother's claims for retroactive and ongoing extraordinary child expenses.

The mother sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal regarding her financial inability to pay costs.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it incomplete and not determinative.

On the merits of the appeal, the court found the motion judge erred in concluding there was divided success and in failing to apply the presumptive costs consequences of rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules given the father's better offers to settle.

The appeal was allowed and costs of the summary judgment motion were fixed at $16,126.29 in favour of the father.

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 brought a motion to amend her Response to Motion to Change to include a claim for retroactive contribution to the children's section 7 extraordinary expenses.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim.

The court granted the applicant's motion to amend her pleadings, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the respondent.

However, the court also granted the respondent's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial as the applicant failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances to justify setting aside the parties' previous comprehensive support order.

The applicant's claims were dismissed.

The applicant husband sought an equalization payment and occupation rent following a 39-month cohabitation and marriage.

The court determined several issues regarding the calculation of net family property, including the treatment of a pre-marriage deposit on the matrimonial home, a debt owed by the husband to his former spouse, notional disposition costs for the wife's condominium in China, and whether a vehicle and funds from the wife's mother were excluded gifts or loans.

The court found that an equal division of net family property would be unconscionable under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act due to the short duration of the marriage and the disproportionate increase in the value of the wife's foreign property, which was unrelated to the marriage.

The husband's equalization payment was reduced from $93,499 to $65,500, and his claim for occupation rent was dismissed.

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.

The maternal grandparents applied for custody of their 9-year-old granddaughter following the death of the child's mother.

The father, who had access under a previous court order, also sought custody.

The court found that the child had lived primarily with her maternal grandparents and had a strong attachment to them, and that moving her would cause further trauma.

The court also noted the father's history of alcohol abuse and the high level of conflict between the parties.

Sole custody was awarded to the maternal grandparents, with a specified access schedule for the father, subject to a prohibition on alcohol consumption during access.

The father was also ordered to pay retroactive child support.

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 parties were unable to settle the issue of costs following the respondent's interim motion regarding the primary residence of the child.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $4,500, arguing she was the successful party and had made reasonable settlement offers.

The respondent argued for no costs or partial indemnity costs in the cause.

The court found the applicant was the successful party on the predominant issue of primary residence and awarded her partial indemnity costs fixed at $3,400.