Frances P. Kiteley

In a family law proceeding involving custody and access issues, the applicant sought a restraining order preventing the respondent from publishing or disseminating private intimate information about her on the internet.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction under s. 46 of the Family Law Act to issue such an order where threats of online disclosure created psychological and emotional fear.

The court held that reasonable grounds to fear for safety can include psychological safety and that threats to publicly disseminate intimate information could justify a restraining order.

The court further held that s. 46(3) permits broader terms where appropriate, including restrictions on online publication.

A restraining order was granted pending further court order to preserve a reasonable atmosphere for litigation and protect the parties and child.

On a family law motion arising from an interim custody, access, restraining order, and child support endorsement, the responding spouse sought a stay pending a proposed appeal.

The court held that leave to appeal had to be sought in the Divisional Court, but considered the request for a stay under rule 38(35) of the Family Law Rules.

Applying the serious issue, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience test, the court stayed only the supervised-access provision because it had not been requested in the original motion materials and would significantly disrupt the children's relationship with their father.

The restraining, custody, and child support aspects of the order were not stayed.

Alternate weekend access was ordered on an interim basis, and no costs were awarded.

On a family-law motion to change final parenting and financial orders, the court found a material change in circumstances because the parenting protocol established by the consent order had failed, including the breakdown of the mediation/arbitration mechanism and the anticipated process for expanding parenting time.

Applying the children's best interests, the court ordered a gradual expansion of the father's parenting time, including overnights, and removed the prior dynamic that allowed the mother to control the increase in access.

The court dismissed the request to compel school-board enrolment assessments, but held that unilateral educational decision-making without meaningful consultation could justify future change.

Financially, the court accepted that the moving party's income had fallen by more than 20 percent, reduced child support and spousal support, and held that private school tuition was no longer a reasonable section 7 expense in light of the parties' means.

The request for immediate sale of the matrimonial home was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under the existing consent order, divorce was severed, and no costs were awarded.

The plaintiff successfully appealed an order of the motion judge that had set aside a previous order striking the defendants' statement of defence and counterclaim for failure to pay costs.

Following the successful appeal, the parties agreed on costs for the leave to appeal and the appeal itself, but disputed the quantum of costs for the proceedings before the motion judge.

The Divisional Court declined to simply adopt the quantum previously awarded to the defendants by the motion judge, instead increasing the amount to reflect the time spent, responsibility undertaken, and the result that should have been achieved.

The court awarded the plaintiff total costs fixed at $50,000 all-inclusive.

On a family law motion, the court found that the respondent deliberately accessed the applicant's personal email account and obtained communications protected by solicitor-client privilege, including an email from counsel and legal accounts describing services rendered.

Applying settled privilege principles, the court held the communications were confidential legal advice and remained privileged despite containing some factual content.

Because the breach was deliberate and the respondent was found untruthful, the court imposed significant procedural sanctions, required an affidavit disclosing all intercepted communications and their dissemination, ordered an undertaking against future interception or recording, prohibited retention of former counsel in related proceedings, and awarded full indemnity costs.

The court also removed privileged complaint materials from the court record and struck portions of the respondent's affidavit referring to case conference discussions.

In a family property dispute, the moving party pursued remaining disclosure requests after an earlier motion endorsement deferred certain items to a trial management conference.

The court held that the outstanding requests were either expanded beyond the original requests, duplicative of requests already dismissed, unnecessary in light of prior answers, or effectively addressed through questioning and trial management processes.

The remaining disclosure motion was dismissed in full.

Costs were ordered to the responding party on a partial indemnity basis, with quantum to be fixed by the trial judge.

In a long-running high-conflict family property proceeding, the court continued a trial management conference and fixed a detailed timetable for final disclosure, limited questioning, financial statements, settlement conference materials, and trial preparation.

The respondent was permitted to amend his pleading to advance a claim for occupation rent, but his request for access to the matrimonial home with real estate agents was refused because prior orders barred motions.

The court also directed service of business records notice without redaction if hospital records were to be relied upon, required particulars for alleged defaults under prior orders, and scheduled a focused settlement conference concerning ownership and value of a specific property and the respondent's revenue from all sources.

Costs of the trial management conferences were reserved to the trial judge.

At a trial management conference in a long-running family property and support dispute, the court finalized the principal issues for trial and imposed detailed pre-trial management directions.

The endorsement addressed expert report disclosure, supplementary affidavits of documents, witness lists, possible amendment to add an occupation rent claim, and production of tax and banking records.

The court emphasized that no further motions could be brought and that trial preparation would be closely supervised to ensure readiness for the scheduled 20-day trial.

At trial management conferences in a family property and spousal support dispute, the court addressed admissibility and case-management issues for an upcoming lengthy trial involving valuation of a motel business, equalization, and retroactive spousal support.

The court clarified that the applicant's claim concerning the motel was confined to equalization and excluded ownership, oppression, partition and sale, rent-income, and contractual enforcement theories.

The court held that an affidavit from a non-attending witness from related civil proceedings was not admissible as trial evidence under the Family Law Rules.

The admissibility of a business valuator originally retained by one side and later approached by the other was deferred to the trial judge, given its central importance and potential mistrial consequences.

Detailed directions were made respecting witness lists, will-say statements, translations, financial disclosure, trial briefs, and further trial management.

At a trial management conference in a long-running family law proceeding, the court addressed trial scheduling, disclosure management, and a request to revisit an earlier order suspending temporary spousal support.

The applicant sought reconsideration and leave to bring a further temporary support motion, but the court refused, emphasizing that the matter was already on the trial list and should proceed expeditiously.

The court nevertheless adjourned the trial start to accommodate counsel's scheduling conflict, imposed strict 20-day trial limits, regulated document copying charges, and set a detailed agenda for the continued trial management conference.

Both parties were barred from bringing further motions before trial.

On a family law motion arising from ongoing support arrears and unresolved property claims, the applicant sought multiple forms of relief including transfer of title to the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The court held it had jurisdiction under s. 34(1)(c) of the Family Law Act to vest title in the applicant as a means of addressing unpaid child support, spousal support, and costs being enforced as support, while preserving the respondent's equalization and partition rights through express conditions.

The court declined other requested relief that fell outside its jurisdiction and dismissed the request to strike the respondent's pleadings for non-disclosure due to an insufficient evidentiary record.

Costs of $1,500 were awarded to the respondent for that unsuccessful aspect of the motion.

In a family law proceeding concerning spousal support, equalization of net family property, and related relief, the applicant brought a motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to strike the pleadings of the primary respondent due to repeated non‑compliance with court orders and procedural rules.

The court reviewed extensive procedural history showing persistent failures to comply with disclosure orders, costs orders, and directions regarding trial management preparation.

Applying the Rule 1(8) framework, the court found multiple triggering events, declined to exercise discretion in favour of the non‑complying respondent, and concluded that continued indulgence would undermine the fair and efficient administration of justice.

The respondent’s Answer and Claim were struck and she was barred from further participation in the proceeding, while the applicant was permitted to proceed toward an uncontested trial.

Claims against the adult children respondents were unaffected as their pleadings had previously been deemed noted in default.

Following an uncontested family trial, the court addressed equalization of net family property, spousal support, and costs after granting a divorce.

The respondent had repeatedly failed to comply with disclosure orders and his Answer was struck, leaving the applicant’s evidence largely uncontested.

The court drew adverse inferences regarding undisclosed assets and attributed significant cash to the respondent when calculating net family property.

A vesting order transferred the respondent’s interest in the matrimonial home to the applicant to satisfy an equalization payment.

The applicant was also awarded retroactive and ongoing spousal support and substantial costs.

In a family law proceeding between spouses, the applicant brought a motion seeking removal of the respondent’s solicitor of record and related relief after the respondent obtained and filed an email between the applicant and her counsel.

The email was a solicitor-client communication that had been accessed through the applicant’s personal email account.

The court considered whether the respondent’s counsel acted improperly by reviewing the email and including it in an affidavit.

Applying authorities concerning inadvertent disclosure of privileged communications, the court accepted counsel’s explanation that she questioned her client about the source of the email, believed it had been obtained from a business account, and concluded it did not contain litigation strategy.

The court found no misconduct warranting removal or sanctions against counsel.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to vary an interim access order requiring a nanny to accompany the child during access visits.

The nanny had resigned, leading to a stalemate in which the applicant mother refused unsupervised access while the father refused supervision, resulting in the child not seeing the father for several weeks.

The court interpreted the earlier order and held that the term “accompany” did not mean supervision.

In the child’s best interests, the court ordered temporary unsupervised access for the father, with supervised transitions between the parents.

The court also permitted the mother to travel temporarily with the child to California for a limited visit with her family.

In an uncontested family trial following separation and allegations of long‑standing domestic abuse, the court determined custody, support, property division, and related relief.

The applicant was granted final custody with supervised access to the respondent and a continuing restraining order.

The court valued the matrimonial home at $560,000, equalized the parties’ net family property, and ordered a vesting of title in the applicant subject to payments to the respondent.

The court imputed income to the respondent due to intentional unemployment and awarded lump sum child support to secure future support obligations.

Additional relief included exclusive possession of the home, a vesting order, and costs.

At a trial management conference in a family law proceeding involving custody, access, child support, and related relief, the court reviewed the status of prior orders and clarified the remaining issues for trial.

The court confirmed that custody had already been determined, while issues such as access, travel restrictions, passport control, child support income determination, and a potential restraining order remained for trial.

The court addressed disclosure issues, including ordering production of the full assessment file of a psychological evaluator and requiring financial disclosure from the respondent.

The endorsement also set deadlines for service of trial records, witness summaries, and document briefs, and restricted the parties from bringing further motions before trial.

The applicant sought to vary an order of a single judge who had denied his request to adjourn a motion to extend the time for filing a Small Claims Court appeal.

The underlying action involved a negligence claim against a paralegal, which had been dismissed.

The Divisional Court found no error in the motion judge's decision, noting that the self-represented applicant failed to provide concrete justification for the delay or the adjournment.

The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The plaintiff appealed an order setting aside a previous order that struck out the defendants' statement of defence and counterclaim for failure to pay costs.

The motion judge had invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Superior Court to set aside the order, citing the negligent representation of the defendants' former lawyer.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in invoking inherent jurisdiction when the matter should have been governed by Rule 59.06(2)(a).

Furthermore, the defendants were not entitled to relief because they failed to take reasonable steps to protect themselves despite being aware of red flags regarding their lawyer's negligence.

The appellant, the common-law spouse of the deceased, appealed a trial decision awarding her $350,000 in dependant's relief from the deceased's estate.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge made several errors in principle, including misapplying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, improperly relying on the deceased's unimplemented intentions, and incorrectly calculating the net estate assets.

The Court set aside the trial judgment, conducted its own analysis of the legal and moral claims of the dependants, and increased the appellant's award to $750,000, plus costs, to adequately provide for her proper support while balancing the competing claims of the deceased's separated wife and adult daughters.