Evan Clemence

The respondent obtained a successful motion for a parenting order regarding three children of a marriage in Switzerland and sought substantial costs of $9,772.24.

The applicant opposed the costs award, arguing no costs should be awarded or alternatively that costs should not exceed 40% on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the respondent was the successful party overall despite some issues being decided in the applicant's favour, and awarded costs of $6,000 including disbursements and HST, applying the proportionality principle and considering all factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

Cette décision porte sur une motion du père intimé visant à exercer son temps parental avec les trois enfants du mariage en Suisse durant l’été 2025.

La mère s’oppose à ce que le père ait dix jours consécutifs de temps parental et propose des conditions alternatives, notamment le retour quotidien des enfants.

Le tribunal analyse l’intérêt supérieur des enfants, la répartition des frais de voyage, la question de la résidence habituelle, et les garanties de sécurité.

L’ordonnance accorde au père dix jours consécutifs de temps parental en Suisse, avec partage des frais et diverses conditions logistiques et de sécurité.

This is an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal was advised that the trial, which addressed equalization, child support, and spousal support, had recently concluded but the trial reasons for decision had not yet been released.

The appellant argued that the appeal should not proceed without these reasons, a position the respondent's counsel acknowledged as arguably premature.

Given the significance of equalization and the issues before the panel, the Court of Appeal adjourned the appeal until after the trial reasons are released.

The parties were ordered to bear their own costs for the attendance.

The applicant mother sought a temporary ex post facto order to relocate with the child to St. Catharines, Ontario, and modify the father's parenting time.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought the child's immediate return to Toronto.

The court found the mother improperly relocated the child without court authorization and that she failed to establish compelling circumstances for the move.

The court ordered the child's return to Toronto or the Greater Toronto Area by January 31, 2023, and established a temporary parenting schedule, emphasizing the importance of the child's relationship with the father.

The applicant sought an ex parte Mareva injunction in a family law proceeding to restrain the respondent from depleting funds unilaterally withdrawn from a jointly held investment account after separation.

The court found the applicant met the five requirements for a Mareva injunction, including a strong prima facie case and a real risk of asset dissipation, and granted an interim order enjoining dealings with the respondent's chequing accounts and ordering disclosure of transactions.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for an interest in her property and repayment of contributions to household expenses made during their cohabitation.

The court granted the defendant leave to amend her pleadings to include a Limitations Act defence, which barred most of the plaintiff's claim.

The court found that a written agreement between the parties was unenforceable due to duress and lack of consideration.

Furthermore, the plaintiff's contributions were akin to rent and not significant enough to establish a constructive trust.

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed, the certificate of pending litigation was discharged, and costs were awarded to the defendant.