D. Summers

The respondent was successful on a motion for relief against deemed admissions arising from the applicant's Requests to Admit.

The court initially proposed a costs award of $5,000 against the applicant, subject to written submissions.

The applicant argued no costs should be payable, while the respondent sought $10,002.20 based on partial indemnity.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments, noting his Requests to Admit were improper and his conduct unnecessarily increased costs.

The court awarded the respondent $10,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The applicant brought an urgent motion seeking exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, a restraining order, child and spousal support, and parenting orders.

The court rescinded the ex parte restraining order but continued the applicant's exclusive possession of the home, ordering her to pay its carrying costs.

The respondent was ordered to pay table child support and his proportionate share of section 7 expenses, while the claim for temporary spousal support was dismissed due to lack of ability to pay.

The court also made temporary orders regarding medical decision-making, parenting time, and non-removal of the children from Ottawa.

Following a five-day trial on parenting time and child support, the applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis for all steps, including issues settled just prior to trial.

The court held that costs could be awarded for the settled issues because the applicant was clearly successful on primary residence and decision-making.

Although the applicant's offers to settle did not trigger full indemnity costs because they contained terms the court could not order, the respondent's unreasonable litigation conduct, including failure to comply with disclosure orders, justified an elevated partial recovery costs award of 70%.

The respondent brought a motion to enforce a final consent order requiring the parties to resolve future spousal support disputes through arbitration.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing that the order itself was not a valid arbitration agreement and she preferred to proceed in court via a Motion to Change.

The court held that it has jurisdiction to enforce a consent order to arbitrate by compelling the parties to execute a compliant family arbitration agreement.

The court ordered the applicant to sign the arbitration agreement and stayed her court proceeding.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary an interim parenting order to lift the supervision requirement, increase his parenting time, and obtain joint decision-making authority.

The court found that the father had failed to comply with previous court orders, including refusing to cooperate with the Office of the Children's Lawyer and failing to disclose mental health records.

Applying the test under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court held there was no compelling reason to vary the status quo before trial, as the child was doing well under the current regime.

The motion was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 18(13) of the Family Law Rules to enforce an alleged settlement agreement regarding the transfer of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The moving party relied on an email exchange between counsel, which culminated in the responding party's counsel stating they 'finally have a deal' and requesting a formal document.

The court found that the email exchange did not contain all the essential terms of a binding contract, leaving critical issues such as mortgage assumption and line of credit discharge unresolved.

The motion was dismissed, as the communications amounted only to an unenforceable agreement to agree.

The respondent mother brought a motion to set aside a default order that permitted the applicant father to proceed to an uncontested trial on parenting and property issues.

The mother had failed to file an Answer after relocating to British Columbia following a mental health crisis.

Applying the five-factor test for setting aside default judgments, the court found that while the motion was not brought promptly, the mother had a plausible excuse due to her mental health and lack of counsel.

Emphasizing that parenting decisions should be made on a full evidentiary record, the court set aside the default order on terms, allowing the mother to file an Answer while granting the father temporary sole decision-making responsibility and costs thrown away.

The respondent mother brought a motion at the opening of a family law trial to determine the admissibility of evidence regarding the applicant father's professional misconduct as a police officer.

The father argued that the Police Services Act created an absolute privilege over all information related to his disciplinary proceedings.

The court held that while documents prepared for the disciplinary process and testimony from those involved are inadmissible and non-compellable, the underlying facts of the misconduct, the charges, and the outcome are provable facts at trial.

The court also rejected arguments that the father had waived privilege or that the Divorce Act paramountcy overrode the provincial statute.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings, for summary judgment, and for interim child and spousal support.

The respondent, who had relocated to Switzerland, failed to comply with prior costs and travel expense orders and did not participate in the motion.

The court declined to strike the pleadings or grant summary judgment, finding that payment of the outstanding amounts from the respondent's share of the home sale proceeds was a sufficient remedy and that genuine issues for trial remained.

The court ordered retroactive and ongoing interim child and spousal support, to be paid from the respondent's share of the sale proceeds, and released $50,000 to the applicant from her share.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking primary residence of the parties' three children, child support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking primary residence, exclusive possession, and the sale of the home.

After considering the children's views and preferences, the court granted the mother primary residence and exclusive possession of the home, finding it in the children's best interests.

The father was ordered to pay table child support, and both parties were ordered to provide further financial disclosure.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion to vary a temporary parenting order to change the children's primary residence to his home, or alternatively for shared parenting.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion to suspend the father's parenting time and order reunification counselling, alleging parental alienation.

The court found no material change in circumstances that would compel a change to the interim order, noting the conflicting evidence and the ongoing involvement of the Children's Aid Society.

Both motions were dismissed without prejudice, pending the release of a parenting assessment and CAS report.

The moving party brought a motion to strike the responding party's pleadings and for costs due to her failure to comply with a prior disclosure order.

The court found that the responding party had disobeyed the order and that her non-compliance was willful, despite her claims that her former lawyer was responsible.

However, the court concluded that striking pleadings is a remedy of last resort and the non-compliance was not egregious enough to warrant such a drastic measure.

The court dismissed the request to strike pleadings but ordered the responding party to pay $5,000 in costs and to produce the remaining outstanding disclosure forthwith.

The parties separated after a 30-year relationship.

The applicant brought a claim for equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, and other financial issues.

The court determined the equalization payment and post-separation adjustments, ordering the applicant to pay the respondent $450,549.69 via a pension transfer.

The court also ordered the applicant to pay $6,300 in spousal support arrears and a $500 lump sum for retroactive spousal support, while dismissing the claim to apportion their adult son's student debt.

The mother brought a motion to vary an interim order that had granted the father sole care and custody of their four-year-old child.

Following the interim order, the father restricted the mother's access to FaceTime calls only.

The court found that the father's unilateral decision to withhold in-person access constituted a material change in circumstances that negatively affected the child.

The court varied the interim order to grant the parties joint legal custody and awarded the mother extensive daytime parenting time, finding it in the child's best interests to restore in-person contact.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for temporary sole custody, primary residence, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home after the respondent mother removed the children from the home without notice.

The mother sought temporary sole custody and limited access for the father, alleging safety concerns related to his PTSD.

The court condemned the mother's self-help tactics and withholding of access, ordering temporary joint custody and a shared parenting schedule where the parents rotate in and out of the matrimonial home.

The issues of exclusive possession and costs were adjourned for further evidence.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2014 consent order that provided for joint custody and equal parenting time.

She sought sole custody, alleging the respondent father physically and emotionally abused their 14-year-old son, causing the child to fear him and refuse contact.

The father sought sole custody, alleging the mother alienated the child.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's abusive behaviour and awarded sole custody to the mother, with access at her discretion in accordance with the child's wishes.

The court also imputed income to the father at $71,333 for child support purposes, finding him intentionally underemployed, and ordered payment of child support and arrears.

Following a seven-day trial regarding custody, relocation, and support, the respondent sought costs of $80,351 on a substantial recovery basis.

The applicant argued for each party to bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found the respondent was the more successful party overall, having succeeded on the central issues of sole custody and relocation to Serbia.

However, the applicant had some success on spousal support and imputing income.

Considering divided success, the parties' respective financial positions, and the disparity in time spent by counsel, the court ordered the applicant to pay costs of $37,500, to be set off against $14,000 in retroactive spousal support owed by the respondent.

The moving party brought an interim motion to suspend his obligation to maintain life insurance as security for spousal support and to suspend enforcement of the support order by the Family Responsibility Office, pending his Motion to Change.

The moving party argued he was in poor health and unable to pay the increased insurance premiums or support.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the moving party had not provided full financial disclosure, particularly regarding $1 million in proceeds from a property sale, and had not sought a stay of the underlying support order.

The moving party was ordered to maintain $500,000 in life insurance, with the responding party paying half the premium pending the final determination.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' two children attend school virtually for the fall 2020 semester due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The mother's new partner was immunocompromised and at high risk of complications from the virus.

The applicant father opposed the motion, arguing that the benefits of in-person learning outweighed the risks.

The court found that the children's best interests were inextricably connected to the health and safety of both households.

Given the medical evidence regarding the step-father's vulnerability, the court ordered that the children attend school virtually from the mother's home for the fall semester.

The mother brought a motion for the return of her infant child to her temporary care and custody pending the final disposition of a child protection application.

The child had been removed by the children's aid society due to concerns regarding the mother's alcohol consumption and the child's exposure to domestic conflict with the father.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the child would be at risk of harm if returned without supervision.

However, the court concluded that the risks could be adequately mitigated by a supervision order with strict terms, including the full-time presence of an approved supervisor in the home.

The child was ordered returned to the mother's care subject to the society's supervision.