Fan MacKenzie

The father sought costs of $33,000 following his successful motion to change regarding primary care and child support.

The mother argued for no costs or a reduced amount based on her inability to pay.

The court found the father was successful on the most contentious issues and that the mother engaged in unreasonable litigation behaviour.

The court ordered the mother to pay the father $18,000 in costs, with $3,600 attributed to child support for enforcement through the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant father sought to increase his parenting time, which had been temporarily limited.

The respondent mother opposed this, citing allegations of sexual impropriety and procedural issues, and sought to maintain the status quo until trial.

A section 30 assessment by Dr. Horvath did not substantiate the sexual abuse allegations and recommended a gradual increase in the father's parenting time.

The court found that the allegations of sexual abuse were not proven and that delaying parenting changes in high-conflict cases is not always appropriate.

The court ordered a temporary, gradual increase in the father's parenting time, incorporating most of the assessor's recommendations, and set a timetable for trial and costs submissions.

This amended ruling addresses a father's motion to change and a mother's cross-motion to change, primarily concerning custody, child support, and special expenses for their child.

The court found that the parties' inability to communicate effectively and their fundamental disagreements rendered joint custody unworkable.

Considering the child's best interests, particularly the father's ability to provide a stable home and the mother's past breaches of orders and lack of educational support, sole custody was granted to the father.

The mother's income was imputed to $30,000 for child support purposes, and the father's income remained at $36,000.

Special expenses under s. 7 of the Divorce Act, including recreational cheerleading, are to be shared equally, with the father solely responsible for the additional costs of competitive cheerleading.

The court emphasized the need for both parents to support the child's interests and improve communication.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim primary residence of the parties' 12-year-old child, which was adjourned pending a Voice of the Child Report.

The court addressed several interim issues, ordering the child to change counsellors after the father unilaterally engaged a counsellor without the mother's consent.

The court also ordered the father to pay interim child support on a set-off basis and interim spousal support at the high range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Further orders were made regarding the equal sharing of matrimonial home expenses, the distribution of home sale proceeds, and corporate disclosure.

The respondent, Anna Romanov, brought a motion to change an existing consent order regarding custody and access, seeking sole custody, changes to access arrangements, child support adjustments, section 7 expenses, and a restraining order.

The applicant, Kevin James Allan, opposed the motion, arguing no material change in circumstances had occurred.

The court found no material change in circumstances to justify altering the custody and access provisions, dismissing that part of the motion.

However, the court granted Ms. Romanov's requests for adjusted child support, reimbursement for medical/dental expenses, payment of section 7 arrears, an insurance compensation payment due to Mr. Allan's non-compliance with a life insurance order, mandatory use of "My Family Wizard" for communications, and a restraining order against Mr. Allan due to a past aggressive incident.

The applicant brought a motion seeking joint custody, child support determination, and sharing of childcare expenses.

The court granted interim sole custody to the respondent, citing the parties' inability to cooperate and the applicant's non-compliance with disclosure orders.

The applicant's income was imputed at $130,000 for child support purposes due to failure to provide pay stubs.

The court capped the applicant's contribution to childcare expenses at $350 per month, finding the respondent's unilateral increase in costs unreasonable.

The applicant's claims for adjournment and mobility were dismissed, and the respondent was awarded $6,500 in costs.

The applicant, Ms. Boily, brought a motion to change a divorce order, seeking retroactive and ongoing spousal support and child support adjustments.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the respondent's significantly higher income in 2012 compared to the initial order.

The court imputed income to the applicant for support purposes due to unexplained business expenses and her failure to pursue a higher-earning profession for which she was trained.

Retroactive spousal support was awarded for 2012 and 2013, but none for subsequent years or on an ongoing basis.

Child support was adjusted for 2015 and set for 2018.

The court emphasized the need for litigation to cease.

Following a successful motion to change regarding retroactive child support, the applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis from the date of her offer to settle.

The respondent argued for a reduction based on partial success on a cross-motion, unnecessary costs, and his financial circumstances.

The court found the applicant's offers to settle were reasonable and the respondent's focus on the cross-motion was unreasonable.

The court awarded the applicant $15,000 in costs, noting that limited financial means cannot be used as a shield against costs orders.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 2005 child support order, seeking retroactive and ongoing child support and section 7 expenses for two children.

The respondent had failed to disclose significant income increases over several years.

The court applied the D.B.S. factors and ordered retroactive support from 2009 to 2016, finding the applicant had a reasonable excuse for delay and the respondent engaged in blameworthy conduct by hiding his income.

The court also imputed income to the respondent for 2016, finding he was intentionally underemployed after being terminated for cause due to unauthorized vacation.

Following a successful motion by the applicant father to return the child to a specific school catchment area, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought full or substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle and the respondent's unreasonable behaviour in unilaterally changing the child's school.

The court found the respondent acted unreasonably but not in bad faith.

Considering the respondent's limited ability to pay and the principle of proportionality, the court awarded the applicant $8,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion after the respondent mother unilaterally moved with their child to Plantagenet and changed the child's school without his consent.

The mother argued the move was within the 25-kilometer geographical restriction in their joint custody order and thus not a material change in circumstances.

The court rejected the mother's argument, finding that the move and school change constituted a major decision requiring joint consent under the order.

The court ordered the child to be returned to the original school's catchment area and registered there for the upcoming school year.

The respondent mother sought costs after successfully defending the applicant father's motion for summer access.

The mother's offer to settle was identical to the court's order.

The court applied Rule 18(14.5) of the Family Law Rules, finding the mother enjoyed complete success and her offer was reasonable.

While the father attempted to negotiate, his offer was deemed unreasonable.

The court awarded the mother $9,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements, declining to award costs for a case conference attendance.

The applicant father sought to amend a separation agreement to obtain joint custody and specific summer access for his two daughters.

The respondent mother opposed, proposing an alternative access schedule based on the children's best interests, citing ongoing conflict and the father's alleged attempts to involve the children in disputes.

The court dismissed the father's motion for summer access, finding his request was based on a sense of entitlement rather than the children's best interests, and adopted the mother's liberal access proposal.

The court also renewed a request for the Office of the Children's Lawyer to become involved.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interim family law order granting retrospective and ongoing spousal support and dismissing his request for child support and contribution to section 7 expenses.

The court applied the leave test under Rule 62.02(4) and held there was no conflicting authority based on different legal principles, no serious reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and no issue of general importance warranting appellate intervention.

The matters were important to the litigants privately but did not engage the development of the law or the administration of justice.

Leave to appeal was dismissed.

On competing family law motions, the court held that a 23-year-old adult child pursuing expensive studies in the United States was not a child of the marriage for purposes of support under the Divorce Act.

Interim spousal support entitlement was uncontested, but the dispute concerned income imputation and quantum.

The court imputed income of $15,000 to the applicant spouse and $157,000 to the respondent spouse, rejected the respondent's position that he could not work on the evidence filed, and ordered retroactive interim spousal support of $6,800 per month from June 1, 2014 with credits for specified payments.

Ongoing interim spousal support of $5,500 per month was ordered effective January 1, 2015, together with reimbursement of life insurance premiums and payment of arrears from trust funds.