Linda Chodos

The applicant sought to assess 30 accounts rendered by his former law firm in a family law matter, alleging the firm failed to prepare for trial and demanded an exorbitant additional retainer.

The court found that the applicant, a sophisticated client, had deliberately obstructed trial preparation and orchestrated the breakdown of the solicitor-client relationship to obtain an adjournment.

The court held that no special circumstances existed to justify assessing the accounts and dismissed the application.

The applicant's motion for a sealing order was partially granted to redact identifying information about his children, but otherwise dismissed as the information was already public and solicitor-client privilege was waived by the nature of the allegations.

The appellant mother appealed orders determining that Ontario had jurisdiction to deal with custody and access of the parties' child under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The family had moved to Hawaii in 2010, but the child returned to Ontario for the summer.

The Divisional Court found the motion judge erred in concluding the child was habitually resident in Ontario and that the child would suffer serious harm if returned to Hawaii.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders were set aside, as Ontario lacked jurisdiction.

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion to adjourn the trial scheduled for January 2016 to April or May 2016.

The moving party argued that an adjournment was necessary due to outstanding expert reports, incomplete questioning, and a pending section 30 assessment report.

The responding party opposed the motion, citing prejudice and the moving party's failure to comply with previous timetables.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party had twice consented to trial dates and failed to comply with the associated timetables, and that further delay would prejudice the responding party and the parties' child.

Following a ten-day trial primarily concerning child custody and a mobility application, the applicant father was largely successful and sought full indemnity costs of over $212,000.

The respondent mother argued for reduced costs based on divided success, her reasonable conduct, and her impecuniosity.

The court found that neither party's offer to settle triggered full indemnity costs and that the mother's conduct was not unreasonable.

The court declined to apportion costs for divided success or reduce them for impecuniosity, ultimately awarding the applicant $106,765.86 on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant father appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent mother sole custody of their child and permitting her to relocate to Quebec.

The father argued the mother interfered with his access and that the trial judge failed to apply the maximum contact principle or give proper weight to the custody assessor's report.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings.

The court emphasized that trial judges are owed considerable deference in custody matters and that the weight given to expert evidence is for the trier of fact.

The mobility clause was struck out as moot since the mother had already returned to Ontario.