Douglas Quirt

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice reconsidered spousal support and costs following a direction from the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal had found the trial judge's initial determination of the wife's income for support purposes unclear.

The trial judge, Harper J., was tasked with re-evaluating the wife's income, particularly regarding capital gains from a one-time share sale, and its impact on periodic spousal support, as well as reconsidering the costs award.

The court imputed an annual income of $282,119 to the wife based on the reasonable investment yield of her capital resources and pension income, and ordered the husband to pay $8,000 per month in spousal support.

The court also found the wife's conduct amounted to bad faith in driving litigation, leading to a substantial costs award against her, requiring her to pay $322,125.70 to the husband.

The parties separated and resolved property and spousal support issues, leaving custody, access, and child support for trial.

The applicant father sought joint custody and expanded overnight access, while the respondent mother sought sole custody and maintenance of the status quo.

The court found the parties to be in high conflict with poor communication, largely due to the applicant's conduct, including persistent lateness and uncooperative behaviour.

Consequently, the court awarded sole custody to the respondent.

However, finding that maximum contact was in the children's best interests, the court granted the applicant's request for expanded overnight access on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and alternate weekends.

Following a nine‑day family law trial involving property division, equalization, spousal support, and divorce, the respondent sought full indemnity costs.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and found that the applicant had engaged in unreasonable litigation conduct, including pursuing baseless allegations of fraud, excessive disclosure demands, and positions lacking legal merit.

The respondent had made early and later offers to settle that were as favourable as or better than the ultimate trial outcome and succeeded on all material issues.

Considering the applicant’s conduct and the settlement offers, the court ordered full indemnity costs in favour of the respondent.

A costs endorsement following the dismissal of an urgent motion brought by the father seeking to set aside a separation agreement, obtain temporary sole custody, terminate the mother's access, and obtain a restraining order.

The father brought the motion ex parte on July 11, 2014, claiming imminent risk to the child's safety.

The court refused to proceed without notice and scheduled a return date.

On July 21, 2014, the motion was dismissed on the basis that it did not meet the test for urgency, as the concerns had been known for months or years and there was no imminent risk of harm.

The court found the father had misled the court regarding ongoing settlement negotiations and the mother's alleged flight risk.

The respondent sought full costs on a solicitor-and-client basis, alleging bad faith.

The court awarded costs to the respondent but on a partial indemnity basis, finding the father's conduct was unreasonable but not in bad faith.

Following a 27‑year marriage, the parties litigated issues relating to equalization of property, division of assets, and spousal support under the Divorce Act and Family Law Act.

The court addressed disputes regarding the valuation of shares in a jointly owned business, claimed exclusions for gifts between spouses, alleged undisclosed assets, and income available for support.

The court rejected the claim for exclusion of jewellery gifts and declined to account for notional disposition costs of corporate shares due to insufficient evidence.

Although the applicant had contributed financially in the early years of the marriage while the respondent built the business, the court held she had already been compensated through shared lifestyle benefits and the multimillion‑dollar buyout of her corporate shares, precluding compensatory support.

However, recognizing the long marriage and needs‑based considerations, the court ordered spousal support at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The parties separated after an 11-year marriage.

Shortly before separation, the respondent wife received a $200,000 gift from her father and, under pressure from the appellant husband, used $180,000 of it to pay down the joint line of credit on the matrimonial home.

The husband left the marriage two months later.

The trial judge ordered an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act, finding that allowing the husband to reap a $90,000 windfall from the gift would be unconscionable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the husband's appeal, holding that the trial judge applied the correct legal test and made no palpable and overriding error in finding that an equal division would shock the conscience of the court.

A costs decision following settlement of a family law dispute concerning child support, spousal support, and parenting arrangements.

The applicant sought costs of $5,000.00, arguing that the respondent's unreasonable conduct, including refusal to provide financial disclosure and rejection of mediation proposals, forced her to commence litigation.

The respondent argued both parties should bear their own costs as he was substantially successful.

The court found the applicant was the successful party and awarded costs based on her reasonable pre-litigation settlement offers and the respondent's unreasonable conduct in refusing financial disclosure and rejecting alternative dispute resolution.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment ordering them to pay compensation to the respondent for breach of fiduciary duty in a failed restaurant venture.

The trial judge found the appellant breached his duty by causing his solely owned corporation to enter into a secret lease agreement with the partnership.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Partnership Act did not preclude the respondent from suing in his own right, the respondent had not elected an exclusive remedy, and the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in finding a breach of fiduciary duty or in the remedy awarded.

The Court also significantly reduced the respondent's costs claim, finding it excessive.

Two police officers appealed their convictions and penalties for discreditable conduct after having sexual intercourse with a civilian in their patrol car while on duty.

They argued the matter should have been handled as a public complaint, which would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and challenged the admissibility of electronically intercepted conversations under Section 8 of the Charter.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeals, finding the complaint was not a public complaint, the Charter arguments failed, and the penalty of dismissal was appropriate given the severe breach of public trust.