Eve Thériault

This is a costs endorsement following a 9-day family law trial.

Both parties sought costs, with the applicant (wife) seeking partial indemnity and the respondent (husband) seeking full indemnity.

The court found that there was divided success on the issues and that both parties contributed to the costs and delays of the trial, including issues with financial disclosure and engagement with Requests to Admit.

Neither party's offers to settle engaged Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

Consequently, the court ordered no costs, with each party bearing their own.

The parties brought cross-motions in an ongoing family law proceeding.

The respondent sought to strike the applicant's pleadings for failure to provide financial disclosure, an increase in child support, and an order holding the proceeds of the matrimonial home sale in trust.

The applicant sought expanded, unsupervised weekend parenting time.

The court declined to strike the pleadings but ordered compliance within 45 days.

The court granted the increase in child support and ordered the home sale proceeds held in trust.

Regarding parenting time, the court found a material change in circumstances and granted the applicant two additional hours of unsupervised parenting time per week, while maintaining the existing supervised parenting time.

The parties separated after a five-year marriage.

Following a nine-day trial, the court determined the equalization of net family property, including the valuation of the husband's foreign properties in Morocco, and ordered the equalization payment to be made via a pension rollover.

The court also ordered the husband to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, proportionate shares of section 7 expenses, and retroactive and ongoing spousal support on a compensatory and needs basis.

The husband's claim for occupation rent was dismissed.

The Applicant father brought a motion seeking the return of their one-year-old daughter to Trenton, Ontario, and primary residence or a shared parenting arrangement.

The Respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking primary residence in Vankleek Hill, Ontario, following her unilateral relocation.

The court, applying the Children's Law Reform Act and principles of interim mobility, found the mother's relocation self-serving and not in the child's best interests, noting her non-compliance with statutory notice requirements.

The court ordered the child's residency to be established within 50 km of Trenton, Ontario, and implemented an interim 2/2/3 parenting schedule.

The Respondent sought to vary, rescind, or suspend a 2007 spousal support order, including arrears, arguing a lack of evidence for the original quantum and material changes in circumstances.

The Applicant opposed, arguing no material change and blameworthy conduct by the Respondent.

The court dismissed the Respondent's request to vary the quantum or rescind arrears, finding his financial disclosure inadequate and his conduct blameworthy.

However, the court varied the duration of spousal support, ordering it to terminate after six years (72 monthly payments of $3,000), and directed FRO to recalculate arrears accordingly.

The parties separated after a 7.5-year cohabitation during which the applicant supported the respondent's military career, resulting in economic disadvantage.

The court granted a divorce and ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $40,254.55.

The court found the applicant entitled to compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, including the respondent's non-taxable military allowances in his income.

Spousal support was ordered at $1,393 per month, terminating in May 2022 after a total duration of 69 months.

The applicant's requests to remain on the respondent's health and life insurance plans long-term were dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of two children, aged 7 and 2, following allegations that the mother's former partner sexually abused the 7-year-old.

The mother and paternal grandmother opposed the motion, seeking the children's return to their care.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm if returned to the mother or placed with the paternal grandmother, citing their failure to protect the children and abide by previous supervision conditions.

The court ordered the children to remain in the temporary care of the Society, with access at the Society's discretion.

The applicant mother sought the immediate return of her child, K, in accordance with an existing temporary order, alleging the respondent father was withholding the child.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking temporary custody of K, citing concerns about the mother's non-compliance with Covid-19 protocols, hygiene, and home maintenance.

The court found both motions had urgent aspects related to Covid-19 but dismissed the father's non-Covid-19 related concerns as not urgent.

The court ordered the continuation of the existing temporary order, requiring the father to return the child to the mother, and mandated both parties to comply with Public Health Covid-19 protocols.

The respondent's motion for temporary custody was dismissed.

The moving party mother brought a motion for contempt against the responding party father, alleging he breached a final order by unreasonably withholding consent to enroll their child in hockey and refusing to take the child to games and practices during his parenting time.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the order only required consent prior to registration, which the mother bypassed by enrolling the child unilaterally.

Furthermore, the order did not clearly compel the father to take the child to the activity.

The court noted that a motion to change, rather than a contempt motion, was the appropriate procedure to address the issue.

The applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that the 15-month-old child be made a Crown ward without access.

The mother was noted in default, and the father opposed the motion, seeking the child's return under supervision.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the parents' ongoing substance abuse issues, lack of stable housing, and failure to engage in services.

The court concluded that Crown wardship without access was in the child's best interests and granted the summary judgment.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order to terminate child support for his 18-year-old son, arguing the son had withdrawn from full-time educational studies.

The son, diagnosed with ADHD and depression, had struggled in high school but recently enrolled in an alternative learning centre to earn credits.

The court applied the test from the parties' consent order, which mirrored the Divorce Act definition of a child, focusing on whether the son was unable to become self-supporting due to illness, disability, or education.

The court found the son was participating meaningfully in an educational program suited to his needs and dismissed the father's request to terminate support.

The court also adjusted the ongoing support amount based on the father's increased income and reduced his life insurance obligation.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable and that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the victim's identification evidence—based on his knowledge of the appellant, recognition of his voice, identification of a can of bear mace previously in the appellant's possession, and recognition of the appellant when his mask was pulled off—provided a reasonable basis for conviction.

The court also found the trial judge's reasons adequate, demonstrating a proper understanding of the evidentiary record and the dangers of identification evidence.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside a final family law order obtained by default after failing to file an Answer to an application.

The court considered whether the respondent acted promptly, whether he had a viable defence, whether the outcome might have differed, and whether he acted in good faith.

The evidence raised serious concerns about whether the application had been properly served, including deficiencies in the affidavit of service and conflicting evidence regarding who received the documents.

The court accepted that the respondent first learned of the order when his pension was garnished and found he acted promptly thereafter.

In the interests of justice, the default final order addressing property, custody, and support was set aside.