Erin Louise Chaiton-Murray

The plaintiff, a former client of the defendant family law firm, commenced a proceeding to have her legal fees assessed under the Solicitors Act.

The defendant moved to stay the proceeding under section 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, relying on an arbitration clause in the retainer agreement.

The plaintiff argued the arbitration agreement was invalid due to unconscionability, citing distress at the time of signing and the potential costs of arbitration.

The court found no evidence of unequal bargaining power or an improvident bargain, noting the plaintiff had the opportunity to review the agreement and the arbitrator had discretion over costs.

The court granted the stay, ordering the dispute to be resolved via arbitration.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion for the return of her 13-year-old son, who was withheld by the applicant father following the Christmas holidays in breach of a 2015 consent order.

The father brought a cross-motion to vary the order, alleging the child was emotionally abused by the mother and her partner.

The court found the father's allegations lacked credibility and particulars, and that he had engaged in inappropriate self-help tactics.

The court ordered the immediate return of the child to the mother, directed that the father's access be supervised, and adjourned the father's cross-motion pending an assessment.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to suspend the respondent's parenting time with their four-year-old daughter or, alternatively, an order that the respondent adhere to strict COVID-19 protocols.

The applicant, a family physician with stage 3 breast cancer, was part of a high-risk group and alleged the respondent was not following public health directives by self-isolating with his new partner's parents and daughter at a cottage.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the respondent's arrangements were reasonable, consistent with public health guidelines, and in the child's best interests to maintain existing parenting arrangements.

The court emphasized the presumption that existing parenting orders should be respected during the pandemic and the need for parents to communicate responsibly.

The parties, married for 25 years and separated for 12, sought a final determination on spousal support.

The Applicant, a full-time homemaker during the marriage, sought indefinite spousal support and a lump sum for post-separation debts.

The Respondent, a civil engineer, argued for termination or reduction of support, citing the Applicant's lengthy cohabitation with a new partner of substantial wealth and his own significant contributions to child and home care during the marriage.

The court found the Applicant entitled to both need-based and compensatory spousal support, acknowledging her economic detriment and health issues.

However, the court also recognized the impact of her re-partnering on the quantum and duration of support.

The court adjusted the Respondent's income for support purposes, including personal expenses paid by his corporation, but declined to attribute corporate pre-tax income.

Spousal support was awarded for a time-limited period, decreasing over time, and a lump sum was granted to the Applicant for specific post-separation debts.

The moving party brought a motion to compel the responding party to fulfill two undertakings given during questioning, specifically requesting marked-up statements to prove her actual expenses from a three-year-old financial statement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party's request required the responding party to create a new document not covered by the original undertaking.

The court also held that the request was not proportional to the issues at trial, as need is only one factor in determining spousal support under the Divorce Act.

The appellant wife appealed a trial judge's decision on a change motion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, increasing the additional spousal support awarded by the trial judge due to the husband's early retirement and lump sum pension payout and other changed circumstances.

The court dismissed the wife's appeal challenging the denial of ongoing child support.

The parties were unable to agree on trial costs, and the court addressed this issue in a costs endorsement.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final order to permit her to move with the parties' four-year-old child from Toronto to Belleville.

The mother sought the move due to the high cost of housing in Toronto and her desire to provide the child with a larger home and his own bedroom.

The respondent father opposed the move, arguing it would negatively impact his access.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined the move was in the child's best interests, noting the mother's willingness to facilitate access by sharing the driving.

The court also ordered the father to pay arrears for section 7 expenses and imputed his income at $110,000 for child support purposes.

Appeal of a motion judge's decision on a change motion brought by the wife following the husband's early retirement and acceptance of an early pension payout.

The motion judge dismissed the wife's claim for child support for the youngest child and varied spousal support to $5,000 per month, significantly below the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range of $6,000 to $8,000 per month.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, dismissing the child support claim but allowing the spousal support appeal.

The appellate court found the motion judge erred in departing from the Guidelines based on the "good luck" of the early pension payout and the wife's alleged financial mismanagement.

The court also found the motion judge misapprehended the Guidelines ranges and the parties' positions on the unequalized pension value.

The Court of Appeal substituted an award of $20,000 per month for 2012 and $8,500 per month for 2013, with future support calculated by deducting 31.78 per cent of annual pension payouts from the husband's line 150 income.

The applicant spouse brought a motion for interim spousal support and an advance for litigation expenses following a long marriage and separation.

The respondent opposed entitlement, argued the applicant was intentionally underemployed, and sought disclosure relating to the applicant’s cohabiting partner while also requesting his own advance for costs.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie entitlement to support arising from the traditional marriage and her economic disadvantage.

Due to the respondent’s failure to provide disclosure necessary for an expert income report, the court accepted an interim income figure including an added-back amount for business expenses.

Interim spousal support was ordered below the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range to account for contributions from the applicant’s cohabiting partner, while both parties’ requests for advance costs were dismissed and the disclosure request adjourned.

The applicant mother sought the return of her nearly six-year-old daughter to Trinidad under the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction.

The respondent father had wrongfully removed the child from Trinidad in November 2011 and retained her in Canada for approximately two and a half years without the mother's consent or acquiescence.

The father argued that Trinidad was not the child's habitual residence and raised defences under Articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, claiming the child was settled in her new environment and that return would pose a grave risk of harm.

The court found that Trinidad was the child's habitual residence, the removal was wrongful, the child was not sufficiently settled in Canada to invoke the Article 12 exception, and the Article 13 defences lacked credible evidence.

The court ordered the child's return to Trinidad in the mother's care.

Following extensive non-compliance with court-ordered financial disclosure in a family law proceeding, the respondent’s Answer was struck.

The court proceeded with an uncontested hearing on issues of child and spousal support after giving the respondent multiple opportunities to comply with disclosure obligations and produce expert income analysis.

Despite repeated orders, the respondent failed to provide tax returns, financial statements, or other required documentation.

The court relied on the applicant’s evidence and imposed final support-related orders while permitting limited future reconsideration only if the respondent first satisfied outstanding costs and disclosure obligations.

Following an urgent family law motion granting the wife exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant sought full recovery costs on the basis that the respondent acted in bad faith by returning to the home immediately after being acquitted of criminal charges, knowing the applicant was bound by an undertaking restricting proximity and communication.

The court reviewed the surrounding circumstances and prior findings that the respondent’s actions demonstrated poor judgment and created an urgent situation requiring court intervention.

Applying Rule 24(1)(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court found the respondent acted in bad faith.

Full indemnity costs were therefore awarded to the applicant.

Following a family law motion relating largely to support and financial disclosure, the applicant sought full indemnity costs of $14,774.19 and requested that a substantial portion be enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.

The court found the applicant had been largely successful and that the respondent had failed to provide disclosure and comply with a prior consent order.

Although the respondent argued that no settlement offer had been made, that some disclosure had been provided voluntarily, and that the applicant was not entirely successful, the court held that the absence of an offer did not preclude full indemnity costs.

The court also questioned the necessity of two counsel and considered the tax implications of support-related costs under Rule 24.

Costs were fixed at $7,500 plus HST and disbursements.