Filomena Maria Andrade

The Respondent Father brought an urgent motion to prohibit the Applicant Mother from travelling outside of Canada with their 5-year-old daughter, V., to San Antonio, Texas.

The Mother had unilaterally planned the trip amidst high conflict and without the Father's consent, despite the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and associated travel advisories.

The court found the matter urgent, dispensed with the requirement for a case conference, and granted the Father's request, prohibiting international travel without mutual written consent or a court order, and ordering the child's passport to be deposited with the Father's counsel.

The applicant sought costs after successfully resisting the respondent's motion to set aside a default judgment.

The respondent argued against costs, citing a reasonable belief about the applicant's ability to bring proceedings, alleged overpayment of child support, and existing costs awards.

The court found no basis to displace the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs and awarded partial indemnity costs to the applicant.

The court rejected the respondent's financial hardship as a relevant consideration for the quantum of costs in this case and found no bad faith on the respondent's part to warrant full indemnity costs.

The respondent father brought a motion to increase his access to permit travel with the parties’ child to his wedding in Alberta and to vary the existing access order to align with his work schedule.

The applicant mother opposed the travel due to concerns about the child's care and brought a cross-motion seeking financial disclosure from the respondent.

The court granted the father permission to travel with the child, with conditions for providing an itinerary and care plan, and varied the access schedule to increase the father's time with the child.

The court denied the father's request for third-party access by his fiancée and her children.

The applicant's request for financial disclosure was granted.

The applicant spouse sought an advance of $250,000 on a future equalization payment in ongoing family property litigation.

The court accepted that the applicant would almost certainly receive a substantial equalization payment exceeding $800,000 but held that the requested amount was not supported by evidence of a reasonable requirement for funds.

Applying the test from Laamanen v. Laamanen and related authorities, the court found the applicant had demonstrated the need for some funds to pursue litigation, including legal and expert expenses.

Exercising its discretion, the court ordered a more modest advance to level the litigation playing field while avoiding undue prejudice to the respondent’s corporate assets.

An interim advance of $50,000 on equalization was granted.

The respondent husband brought a motion to set aside a final divorce order obtained on default after he failed to file an answer and financial statement within extended deadlines.

The court considered whether the delay, the indulgences granted by opposing counsel, and post-deadline discussions affected the validity of the default.

Balancing the principle of finality against the preference for determining disputes on their merits, the court held that the merits should prevail, particularly given the ongoing nature of support obligations.

The equalization order was set aside, but several other provisions of the divorce order were maintained as interim orders pending trial.

The moving party was ordered to promptly file financial disclosure and pay costs of the motion.