Duncan Alan Roy Crosby

The parties, married for almost six years, separated in 2017.

The Applicant sought divorce, parenting relief, child and spousal support, and equalization.

The Respondent sought similar relief.

The court determined the parties' incomes for support purposes, found the Respondent entitled to spousal support for eight years commencing January 1, 2018, and ordered the Applicant to pay an equalization payment of $35,461.38 after post-separation adjustments.

The court also resolved outstanding holiday parenting time, ordering shared time for Easter and Thanksgiving weekends, and alternating Halloween.

The respondent brought two motions: one for contempt against the applicant for alleged breaches of an access order and non-payment, and an urgent motion for resumption of in-person access to the children, which the applicant had suspended due to COVID-19 concerns.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding insufficient particularization of access breaches and noting that the payment issue was a "payment order" excluded from contempt provisions.

The urgent motion for access was granted, with the court emphasizing the presumption that existing orders should continue and that the applicant failed to provide specific evidence of the respondent's non-compliance with COVID-19 protocols to justify suspending access.

A costs decision following a family law trial concerning access to a two-year-old child.

The respondent was largely successful on the primary issue and made a formal Offer to Settle eight days before trial that mirrored the final judgment.

The applicant refused to settle and took an intransigent position throughout the litigation.

The court awarded costs at 50% of the respondent's claimed amount, reducing the award due to the respondent's poor conduct and behaviour in the early stages of the litigation, despite his ultimate success and the applicant's failure to negotiate.

A trial concerning access to a two-year-old child, Aleene Bradley, born in December 2016.

The applicant, Janelle Burley, sought to maintain limited access for the respondent, Christopher Bradley, with overnight visits deferred until July 2021 when the child would be approximately 4.5 years old.

The respondent sought substantially increased access, including overnight visits beginning within four months.

The court found that while Bradley had demonstrated past conduct issues including anger management problems and violence toward intimate partners, he posed no threat to the child and was a capable parent.

The court rejected Burley's restrictive access proposal and ordered a graduated access schedule beginning with weekly Saturday and Wednesday visits, progressing to overnight access by June 2020.

The court emphasized the importance of maximizing contact between the child and both parents consistent with the child's best interests.

The appellant, M.D., appealed an order from the Ontario Court of Justice that struck his Response to Motion to Change and directed an uncontested trial.

The original order was made due to M.D.'s repeated non-compliance with court orders, including non-payment of costs and failure to provide documents.

The Superior Court of Justice, on appeal, applied a three-pronged test for striking pleadings, finding that a triggering event occurred and striking the pleadings was appropriate given the history of non-participation.

However, the motion judge erred by not considering other remedies, particularly in a case involving the best interests of a child.

The appeal was allowed in part, reinstating the matter for trial but with M.D.'s pleadings remaining struck.

M.D.'s participation was limited to cross-examination of the respondent's witnesses and final submissions, and he was prohibited from bringing pre-trial motions without leave.

The respondent brought a motion for a temporary order granting her sole custody or, alternatively, access to the children.

The applicant had previously obtained an ex parte order for sole custody due to concerns about the respondent's mental health and a potential relocation.

The court maintained the applicant's temporary custody but found insufficient evidence to justify continued supervised access, particularly given its limited availability and negative impact on the children's relationship with the respondent.

The court ordered a phased expansion of unsupervised access for the respondent, while prohibiting her from removing the children from Renfrew County.

In a motion to change a final order concerning parental access to a child, the respondent failed to comply with a court order requiring payment of $500 toward accumulated costs awards totalling $3,500.

The respondent also failed to produce the child's birth certificate and health card as ordered.

The court struck the respondent's pleadings under Family Law Rules 1(8)(c) and directed an uncontested trial to proceed, finding the respondent's non-compliance demonstrated contempt for the court process and a lack of commitment to meaningful participation in the proceedings.

This is a costs endorsement arising from an interim motion where the applicant was substantially successful on relocation and shared parenting issues.

The applicant sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The court considered the applicant's success, the reasonableness of counsel's hourly rate, a good offer to settle made by the applicant, and the respondent's inability to pay.

Costs were fixed at $14,000, inclusive of taxes and disbursements, payable by the respondent within 90 days.

The applicant sought summary judgment for sole custody of a child, discretionary access for the respondent, a restraining order preventing the respondent from attending within 100 metres of the applicant, the child, their residence, schooling, and the applicant's place of employment, and costs on a solicitor-client basis.

The respondent, acting in self-representation, had not prepared materials to respond despite being served with the notice of motion.

The court granted an interim restraining order but adjourned the balance of the relief to allow the respondent additional time to prepare a response, finding that fairness required such an extension given the serious allegations and legal consequences involved.

This costs endorsement relates to an unsuccessful motion brought by the respondent to stay the enforcement of a temporary order concerning parenting arrangements, pending an appeal.

The court applied the general rule that costs follow the event, finding no compelling reasons to depart from this practice.

Consequently, the applicant, as the successful party in the underlying motion, was awarded partial indemnity costs.

The respondent brought a motion seeking a declaration that North Bay is the proper jurisdiction, return of the children to the District of Nipissing, interim custody, and alternative weekend access.

The applicant opposed the transfer and brought a cross-motion for a restraining order.

The court found that the children's ordinary residence is Mattawa in the District of Nipissing, where they had lived their entire lives prior to being taken by the applicant without warning.

The court determined there was no immediate danger to justify hearing the case elsewhere and transferred the matter to North Bay.

The court found the applicant's allegations of assault lacked credibility, noting the Crown had discharged the respondent at his preliminary inquiry.

The restraining order motion was adjourned to be heard in the proper jurisdiction.

The applicant and respondent brought cross-motions concerning the respondent's unilateral relocation with the children from Eganville to Ottawa.

The court considered the children's best interests, applying principles from mobility cases.

It found that the respondent had not demonstrated a valid and compelling parent-based reason for the move and that remaining in Eganville offered identifiable benefits for the children, including easier contact with their father and paternal grandparents, and stability for the older child.

The court ordered the respondent to re-establish residency near Eganville within 60 days, failing which the children would reside with the applicant.

A shared parenting regime was ordered upon the respondent's return.

The applicant sought an interim order for custody of the child, N., following a prior final order granting custody to the respondent.

The applicant had previously struggled with substance abuse but had successfully rehabilitated herself, completed treatment programs, obtained stable employment, and was in a supportive relationship.

The respondent had failed to meaningfully participate in the proceedings, had denied access to the applicant for an extended period, and the child had experienced significant neglect including excessive school absences, poor dental hygiene, and developmental concerns.

The court granted interim custody to the applicant, finding it was in the child's best interest, while maintaining the respondent's access rights on a structured basis.