Frances P. Kiteley

The father appealed a summary judgment that dismissed his motion to change a final order regarding custody and access.

The motions judge found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding the father failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances.

The appeal court upheld the motions judge's decision, finding no errors in law or palpable and overriding errors in fact, particularly regarding the father's progressive hearing loss and other alleged changes.

The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to make written submissions on costs if they could not agree.

The Respondent brought a motion for a Voice of the Child Report for their two children (aged 8 and 6).

The Applicant opposed on procedural grounds (judge recusal due to prior settlement conference involvement, and motion not suitable for Form 14B) and substantive grounds (lack of jurisdiction without consent, children too young, report's limited utility).

The court dismissed the Applicant's objections, finding that "issue" in Rule 17(24) refers to substantive matters, not procedural ones, and that Rule 20.1(3) provides jurisdiction to order such reports without consent.

The court deemed the report appropriate given the children's ages and the lack of progress in negotiating parenting time changes.

The motion for the Voice of the Child Report was granted, with the Respondent to pay 100% of the fees, and no costs were awarded for the motion.

This endorsement addresses a request for costs "thrown away" due to the adjournment of a trial date.

The applicant had requested the adjournment, and the respondent sought costs.

The court found that the adjournment was caused by the applicant's failure to adhere to a consent timetable for pleadings.

While the delay was not wilful, the respondent was entitled to costs thrown away.

The court clarified what constitutes "costs thrown away" in this context, excluding work done prior to the specific adjournment for which costs were sought.

Costs were fixed at $1,000.00 on a partial indemnity basis.

This endorsement addresses costs arising from a motion for temporary spousal support where the Applicant was largely successful.

The Applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the Respondent sought full recovery costs, arguing the Applicant's unreasonable conduct in bringing the motion on short notice should disentitle her to costs.

The court found the Applicant's conduct unreasonable, partly due to her fragile medical condition, but also noted the Respondent's prior failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court determined that the Applicant's unreasonable conduct warranted a reduction in her costs award, but not a denial, and dismissed the Respondent's claim for costs, finding that many of his incurred costs related to overdue financial disclosure.

The Applicant was awarded approximately 50% of her substantial indemnity costs.

The appellant appealed an arbitration award concerning spousal support, life insurance, and medical benefits.

The arbitrator had conducted a de novo review of the separation agreement's support provisions, leading to a step-down and eventual termination of spousal support.

The appellant argued the arbitrator erred in interpreting the scope of the review and in exercising discretion.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the arbitrator correctly interpreted the separation agreement as allowing a de novo review and did not make palpable and overriding errors in her discretionary decisions regarding support and costs.

The applicant sought an annulment of a purported marriage, alleging duress and non-compliance with formal and essential validity requirements.

The respondent was served but did not file an answer.

The court found that the ceremony failed to meet formal validity requirements, as the parties were not in the presence of each other, the officiant, and witnesses, and mandatory declarations were not made.

Furthermore, the applicant did not freely consent to the marriage, having been subjected to cultural and familial pressure.

The court annulled the marriage on grounds of both formal and essential invalidity, as well as duress.

The applicant sought a provisional order to adjust child support and calculate arrears retroactive to 2012, citing the respondent's failure to provide financial disclosure as required by a 2011 divorce order.

The respondent eventually provided disclosure, leading to an agreed calculation of significant arrears.

The court confirmed the arrears, denied the respondent's claims for credits for parenting time and expenses, and denied the applicant's request for Section 7 expenses due to a prior agreement.

The court ordered the respondent to continue paying an amount higher than the current guideline amount for the remaining child, with the excess applied to the arrears, and awarded costs to the applicant.

The Applicant wife sought to vary a final divorce order, terminate child support obligations, and set arrears to zero, while the Respondent husband sought various orders including equalization of net family property and repayment of alleged overpaid support.

The court found exceptional circumstances to make final and temporary orders at a case conference, eliminating the Applicant's child support arrears and terminating her support obligation.

The Respondent's claims, including those seeking to vary a separation agreement and freeze property, were deemed non-viable.

The court ordered both parties to retain counsel for future proceedings to ensure claims have a legal basis and to prevent the misuse of judicial resources.

The biological mother appealed a final order that permitted the paternal grandmother to relocate with the child to Alberta and terminated the mother's access.

The appeal focused on the termination of access, arguing the trial judge erred in findings regarding the mother's inconsistency in exercising access and her ability to protect the child from an alleged abuser.

The appellate court applied the palpable and overriding error standard of review for mixed questions of fact and law.

The court found no such error in the trial judge's conclusions regarding the mother's inconsistent access and her failure to protect the child, nor in the decision to terminate access as the only means to serve the child's best interests.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The Applicant brought a motion to strike the Respondent's Answer and related documents due to his persistent non-compliance with multiple court orders regarding financial disclosure and child support payments.

The Respondent sought an adjournment, leave to amend his Answer, and permission for international travel with the child.

The court dismissed the Respondent's adjournment request and limited the scope of his motion.

Finding the Respondent's non-compliance to be exceptional and egregious, the court granted the Applicant's motion to strike the Respondent's Answer with respect to non-parenting issues, allowing financial matters to proceed on an uncontested basis.

The court also imposed travel restrictions on both parties and fixed costs against the Respondent.

The Applicant brought a cross-motion for partial summary judgment regarding the valuation date, and the Respondent brought a motion for disclosure and a valuation report at her valuation date.

The court adjourned the Applicant's cross-motion due to insufficient notice and the need for a full day hearing, and also adjourned the Respondent's disclosure motion until after the valuation date issue is determined.

The Applicant was ordered to pay costs for the adjournment.

The applicant mother brought an uncontested motion to change a 2001 child support order, seeking retroactive and prospective increases in table child support and section 7 expenses.

The respondent father failed to provide financial disclosure or participate in the proceedings.

Applying the DBS factors, the court found the mother had a reasonable excuse for delay due to severe injuries from car accidents, and the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to disclose income.

The court imputed income to the father at $78,661 per year based on averaging past income, ordered retroactive support and section 7 expenses totaling over $138,000, and awarded full indemnity costs of $19,000 to the mother.

The applicant payor brought a motion for a refraining order against the Family Responsibility Office and a motion to change a final child support order.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the applicant's signature on his affidavit and financial statement had been forged, likely by his counsel.

Despite the procedural irregularities, the court found that the children were no longer eligible for support as of 2010 and the applicant had actually overpaid.

Relying on the primary objective of the Family Law Rules, the court dispensed with service on the recipient and assignee, granted the refraining order, and terminated the child support order retroactively.

The applicant brought a motion for the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home, severance of the divorce, and related relief.

The respondent, who was incarcerated in Florida awaiting trial for assaulting the applicant, sought an adjournment due to communication difficulties with his counsel.

The court dismissed the adjournment request to avoid prejudicing the applicant's pending condominium purchase.

Applying the Partition Act, the court granted the order for sale, finding no evidence that the sale would prejudice the respondent's equalization payment.

The court ordered 50% of the net proceeds to be released to the applicant and the remaining 50% to be held in trust.

The motion to sever the divorce was dismissed without prejudice, and no costs were ordered.

The respondent father sought costs following a motion for contempt against the applicant mother.

Although the court did not find the mother in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt, it found on a balance of probabilities that she deliberately and willfully breached a parenting order, necessitating a remedy.

The court awarded the respondent costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing the amount at $15,429 inclusive of disbursements and HST, noting the mother had sufficient capital to pay.

The parties attended a case conference to report on settlement status and establish a timetable for next steps in their family law dispute.

The court set a peremptory trial date and ordered a schedule for the exchange of formal Rule 18 offers to settle.

The court also directed the applicant to prepare to address the impact of his prior bankruptcy on his claim for a constructive trust interest in the respondent's property.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons to take no further action regarding his complaint against a physician.

The complaint arose from the physician's requirement that the applicant attend the clinic in person for a prescription renewal rather than renewing it by fax.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable and that the Committee's investigation was adequate.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed his application alleging racial discrimination and reprisal against a newspaper, a hospital, and a press council.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success was reasonable.

The Court also dismissed the applicant's claims of procedural unfairness, reasonable apprehension of bias, and systemic oppression against self-represented litigants.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellants, plaintiffs in a proposed class action alleging price-fixing in the foreign exchange market, obtained an ex parte subpoena in the United States under 28 U.S.C. 1782 against a non-party, Bloomberg.

The respondents successfully moved before the case management judge for an order requiring the appellants to obtain authorization under the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure before taking any steps to enforce the subpoena.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appellants' appeal, finding that the motion judge correctly held that the appellants could not use the U.S. process to circumvent Ontario's strict rules on pre-certification discovery of non-parties, and that the appellants had failed to make full and fair disclosure to the U.S. court.

The Applicant brought a motion for interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and the Respondent brought a motion for an order compelling global mediation.

The court granted the Applicant's motion, finding that it was in the best interests of the children to remain in the only home they had known without disruption.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion for global mediation, finding no agreement between the parties to globally mediate the matter.