Deborah Lee Ditchfield

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.

The applicant was successful on his motion to sever the divorce and sought costs.

The respondent agreed the applicant was entitled to costs, but disputed the quantum.

The court noted that delay in addressing corollary issues in a companion action unnecessarily complicated the proceeding.

Costs were awarded to the applicant in the fixed amount of $1,500, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding child custody, child support, property equalization, and costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decisions granting sole custody to the respondent, calculating child support based on 2012 income, and excluding gifts and inheritances deposited into a joint account from the respondent's net family property.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding costs, finding the trial judge erred in awarding full recovery costs based on an offer to settle that expired before trial.

The trial costs award was varied to $76,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

Following a family law trial, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought full recovery of trial costs, while the respondent requested that each party bear their own costs.

Applying s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the applicant was significantly more successful overall, particularly on the key issue of equalization of net family property.

The court also found that the respondent’s conduct, including providing incomplete and misleading information regarding the valuation of a business interest, unnecessarily prolonged the litigation.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $35,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following a divorce trial, the court addressed retroactive child support, a restraining order request, and equalization of net family property.

Retroactive child support was denied because the adult child was not shown to be a dependent within the meaning of the Divorce Act or Family Law Act after age 18.

The court also terminated an existing restraining order, finding insufficient evidence of reasonable fear for personal safety.

In determining equalization, the court rejected parts of the respondent’s financial evidence due to credibility concerns and incomplete disclosure, particularly regarding a family aviation business.

Relying on evidence of a near‑contemporaneous offer to purchase corporate assets, the court valued the respondent’s business interest and ordered an equalization payment to the applicant.

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 and respondent separated after a long relationship involving chicken farming.

The applicant claimed that a barn and chicken quotas registered in the respondent's name were held in trust for him or that she was unjustly enriched.

The court found no evidence of an express trust and no unjust enrichment, as the respondent had financed and worked for her own assets.

The court ordered the applicant to pay an equalization payment of $55,798.83, granted joint custody of their child with primary residence to the respondent, and ordered the applicant to pay $600 per month in child support.

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.

The applicant brought a motion concerning enforcement of property transfer relating to the former matrimonial home and temporary parenting access arrangements.

The respondent brought a cross‑motion seeking enforcement of an existing temporary order permitting overnight access and requesting additional mid‑week parenting time.

Applying the best interests of the child test under s. 16 of the Divorce Act, the court concluded that increased contact with the respondent was appropriate.

The court ordered a rotating two‑week schedule providing alternate weekend overnight access and mid‑week visits, with more mid‑week time during weeks without weekend parenting time.

Although the applicant succeeded on the issue relating to the transfer of the matrimonial home and the respondent succeeded on the access issues, success overall was divided and no costs were awarded.

The respondent successfully applied to vary a support order, resulting in the waiver of almost $200,000 in child and spousal support arrears upon payment of $1,000.

The appellant appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the application judge erred in principle by waiving the arrears based almost entirely on the respondent's unsupported representation of his inability to pay, despite a record showing contested property interests, no medical evidence of disability, and a history of non-compliance.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding her jointly and severally liable for general damages and solely liable for exemplary damages arising from historical sexual assaults committed by her ex-husband against the respondent.

The trial judge found the appellant was present during the abuse, owed a fiduciary duty to the respondent, and failed to protect her.

The Court of Appeal upheld the findings of liability and general damages, but set aside the exemplary damages award, finding the trial judge failed to assess whether the general damages were insufficient to achieve the goals of punishment and deterrence.

The applicant, a social worker, sought judicial review of a decision by the Complaints Committee of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Services Workers to issue a caution against her.

She argued the Committee breached procedural fairness by failing to disclose all complaint letters submitted by the complainant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Committee met its limited duty of fairness by providing reasonable information about the allegations and an opportunity to respond.

The court also held that the decision to caution was reasonable given the College's public interest mandate.

The appellant father appealed an order determining his access to the children between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. on 'exceptional days' when they were not in school, an issue left open by minutes of settlement.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge committed no error in principle in determining the issue and declining to re-open it.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.