Filomena Maria Andrade

Following a bifurcated trial regarding the validity of a cohabitation agreement, the successful respondent sought costs on a full or partial indemnity basis.

The applicant argued for divided success and raised her inability to pay.

The court found the respondent was entirely successful but rejected the claim for elevated costs.

Applying principles of proportionality and considering the applicant's precarious financial circumstances, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at $18,885.80 and reduced them by 50%, ordering the applicant to pay $9,000.

The applicant sought to set aside a cohabitation agreement under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act, arguing the respondent failed to disclose significant assets and that she did not understand the agreement's nature or consequences.

The court found the applicant had sufficient general knowledge of the respondent's assets and understood that the agreement protected his property and waived spousal support.

The court declined to set aside the agreement and further held that its terms successfully ousted the equalization provisions of the Family Law Act by substituting a division based on legal ownership.

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 maternal grandparents applied for custody of their 9-year-old granddaughter following the death of the child's mother.

The father, who had access under a previous court order, also sought custody.

The court found that the child had lived primarily with her maternal grandparents and had a strong attachment to them, and that moving her would cause further trauma.

The court also noted the father's history of alcohol abuse and the high level of conflict between the parties.

Sole custody was awarded to the maternal grandparents, with a specified access schedule for the father, subject to a prohibition on alcohol consumption during access.

The father was also ordered to pay retroactive child support.

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.

Following an urgent family law motion regarding increased access to a four‑year‑old child, the court determined the costs consequences of the motion.

The moving party had obtained temporary expanded access pending a case conference and was therefore the successful party under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

However, the court emphasized the principles of proportionality and reasonable expectations in assessing costs.

The amount claimed was found excessive given the temporary and non‑dispositive nature of the order and because the claim improperly included case conference costs.

The court fixed costs of the urgent motion at a reduced amount.

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 applicant spouse brought a motion for interim spousal support retroactive to July 1, 2011, along with related relief including maintenance of health benefits, life insurance, vehicle possession, and financial disclosure from corporations controlled by the respondent.

The principal dispute concerned the parties’ respective incomes and whether income should be imputed to the applicant for purposes of calculating interim support.

The court declined to impute additional income to the applicant and determined the respondent’s income based on an averaged assessment of fluctuating business income.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and principles governing interim support motions, the court ordered interim support based on income‑sharing and the goal of approximating the marital standard of living.

Retroactive interim spousal support and additional disclosure orders were 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.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim against the respondent for negligent vehicle maintenance.

The appellant alleged the respondent failed to properly tighten a drain plug during a fluid change, causing his vehicle to break down 11 months later.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant failed to prove causation on a balance of probabilities.

The court also found no error in the admission of a downloaded maintenance manual into evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.