Elliot Vine

This trial decision addresses the financial issues between separated spouses, including child support, spousal support, equalization of net family property, and division of assets.

The parties had previously settled parenting issues.

The court made significant findings on the credibility of the Respondent, Michael, particularly regarding his employment history, alleged mental health issues, and a purported $100,000 loan from his parents, which the court found to be fabricated.

The court imputed income to both parties for support purposes, ordered retroactive and ongoing child support, and found the Applicant, Kathryn, entitled to spousal support (with quantum to be determined later).

The decision also dealt with the division of timeshare units, valuation of vehicles, and various post-separation adjustments, ultimately favouring the Applicant's financial claims.

This case involves competing interim parenting motions in a high-conflict family litigation.

The Respondent Mother unilaterally relocated with the child from Hamilton to Woodbridge, alleging family violence.

The Applicant Father sought the child's return to Hamilton and joint decision-making, denying abuse.

The court, facing conflicting affidavit evidence and a young child, adjourned the Applicant Father's motion until a s.30 assessment was completed.

The court ordered that the child reside primarily with the Respondent Mother and granted the Applicant Father supervised parenting time, adjusting the schedule to reduce transit time.

The decision emphasized the child's best interests, the difficulty of interim mobility motions, and the need for caution with conflicting affidavit evidence.

The applicant father sought unsupervised parenting time, which the respondent mother opposed, proposing alcohol monitoring via Soberlink.

The court denied the request for fully unsupervised time due to insufficient consistent parenting time under the previous supervised order.

Instead, it issued a temporary order replacing supervision with mandatory Soberlink alcohol testing for the father during parenting time, with the costs of the device and testing to be equally shared between the parties.

The Father brought an urgent motion to add his girlfriend, L.H., to the list of approved parenting supervisors, as his parenting time was supervised due to concerns about alcohol abuse.

The Mother opposed, arguing that the girlfriend's new relationship with the Father could compromise her objectivity as a supervisor, especially given the Father's denial of his alcohol issues and his lack of candour regarding the relationship.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Mother's refusal to be reasonable and in the children's best interests.

The judge noted the Father's manipulative conduct, his failure to utilize other already-approved supervisors, and his misrepresentation of L.H.'s role.

The applicant father and respondent mother both brought motions regarding parenting time for their two young children.

The mother sought supervised parenting time or the use of a Soberlink device due to allegations of the father's alcohol abuse, which the father opposed.

The court found sufficient evidence of an alcohol problem to warrant temporary supervised parenting time out of caution.

The court ordered a schedule of alternate weekends and every Tuesday, which was more time than the mother proposed but less than the father sought, with all time to be supervised by a mutually approved person or the paternal grandmother.

The parties separated after an 18-year marriage.

The court determined the parties' incomes, imputing self-employment income to the respondent but declining to impute income to the applicant for underemployment.

The court ordered set-off child support for the parties' three children based on their respective residence schedules.

The applicant was awarded indefinite spousal support on a compensatory basis, but her claim for retroactive support to the date of separation was dismissed due to lack of effective notice.

Both parties' claims for retroactive section 7 expenses were dismissed for lack of notice, proof, and reasonableness.

The applicant's claim for a constructive trust over the matrimonial home to share in its post-separation increase in value was dismissed, as she failed to establish unjust enrichment and the equalization regime adequately addressed her contributions.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final order regarding the children's school enrollment and the respondent mother's imputed income for child support.

The father sought to move the children to a school in Georgetown following his relocation, and to impute a higher income to the mother.

The court held that a material change in circumstances was required under section 17 of the Divorce Act to vary the order.

Finding no material change in circumstances regarding either the children's needs or the mother's financial situation, the court dismissed the motion to change.

Following divided success on multiple family law motions, both parties sought costs.

The mother sought full recovery of $73,845 based on an offer to settle, while the father sought partial indemnity of $10,971.

The court found that while success was evenly divided, the mother was entitled to some costs because two severable paragraphs of her offer to settle were as favourable as the order obtained.

The court awarded the mother $6,000 in costs, offset by her share of the costs for cross-examining an expert witness, resulting in a net award of $4,566.

The court also clarified a previous order regarding the father's spring break access.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion for leave to proceed with a motion to change a 2010 child support order and to reduce a 2012 security for costs order.

The motion judge had dismissed both requests without adequate explanation.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge's reasons were insufficient for meaningful appellate review.

The court determined that the appellant had established a prima facie case of change in circumstances warranting review of the child support order, including significant income reduction and bankruptcy.

The court allowed the appeal, granted leave to proceed with the motion to reduce security for costs, and reduced the security requirement from $59,500 to $10,000, enabling the appellant to pursue his motion to change the child support order.

The appellant appealed from the parenting schedule established by the trial judge following an 11-day trial.

The trial judge had ordered that the respondent have greater contact with their four-year-old daughter, including extended overnight visits during weekends and holidays.

The appellant contended that the trial judge erred in failing to follow the expert assessor's recommendations for a gradual increase in overnight and holiday access, and that the child was distressed by the current schedule.

The appellant also sought to introduce fresh evidence from a clinical psychologist.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error in principle.

The trial judge had properly exercised his discretion in crafting a reasonable parenting schedule that reflected the best interests of the child while accounting for the toxic relationship between the parties.

Following a family law trial where the applicant was largely successful in imputing income to the respondent and obtaining child support, the applicant sought full recovery costs of $43,927.37.

The court found the applicant was the most successful party, though the respondent had some success in capping section 7 expenses for dance.

The court determined the respondent behaved unreasonably by concealing his income, justifying costs on a full indemnity scale.

The court fixed costs at $38,000, payable within three months, and permitted the respondent to pay retroactive child support in 12 monthly installments.

Following an 8.5-year marriage and separation, the applicant (V.K.) sought sole custody and supervised access for their two children, while the respondent (A.K.) sought unsupervised access.

The applicant's request for supervised access stemmed from an incident where the respondent damaged property and breached an undertaking after an early case conference.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" principle under the Divorce Act and Children's Law Reform Act, granted V.K. sole custody but allowed A.K. unsupervised access for at least 35% of the children's time.

The court found insufficient compelling evidence to justify supervised access based on a single incident of property violence, but stipulated that any future violence would trigger an immediate review of the parenting arrangement and costs.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer was also requested to become involved.

This trial addressed the applicant's request for income imputation, ongoing and retroactive child support, and Section 7 expenses.

The court imputed an annual income of $73,000 to the respondent, finding he was intentionally underemployed and that his underemployment was unreasonable.

Consequently, the court awarded ongoing and retroactive guideline child support.

While retroactive Section 7 expenses for the children's dance activities were awarded, the respondent's share was reduced due to the unreasonableness of the high costs not contemplated in the original separation agreement, and future contributions were capped.

The proportionate shares for ongoing Section 7 expenses were also adjusted.

A child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act in which the Halton Children's Aid Society sought a finding that a child was in need of protection under sections 37(2)(f) and (g) due to emotional harm caused by parental conflict, particularly the mother's unfounded allegations of abuse against the father.

The Society sought placement of the child in the father's custody with supervised access for the mother.

The mother opposed the application and sought dismissal or, alternatively, joint and equally shared custody.

The court found the child was in need of protection, placed the child in the father's exclusive care and custody, and ordered supervised access for the mother under a one-year supervision order.