Genevieve M. Samuels

The appellant challenged property and costs aspects of a family law judgment after an 11-day trial.

The court found only a minor arithmetic error in deducting valuation-date debt, increasing the equalization payment by $4,250.

All remaining grounds, including tracing, exclusions, RESP treatment, post-separation adjustments, and costs, were rejected.

This decision resolves a range of family law issues following the separation of Mei Yee Lau and Wing Hong Tao, including parenting time, child support, property division, and the treatment of gifts and loans from family members.

The court determined the best interests of the children required a parenting schedule closely aligned with the mother's proposal, found the date of separation to be December 24, 2019, and addressed the tracing and exclusion of gifted property under the Family Law Act.

The court also considered the treatment of RESPs, imputed income to the mother for child support purposes, and made orders for equalization and post-separation adjustments.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking to change the primary residence of the four-year-old child from the respondent mother to himself, and to determine the child's school attendance.

The motion heavily relied on an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) report that was critical of the mother's lifestyle and stability.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, disputing the OCL report's findings and alleging bias.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, emphasizing the high threshold for disturbing a de facto parenting status quo on an interim basis.

The court found that the OCL report, largely based on hearsay and contentious information, carried little weight for the purposes of the interim motion, and that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence that the child's best interests required an immediate change in primary residence.

Following a family law trial regarding parenting time and decision-making responsibility, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The applicant sought $72,500 in costs, while the respondent argued each party should bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found that while success was divided, the applicant was the more successful party on the primary issue of parenting time.

After considering the parties' offers to settle, unreasonable behaviour by the respondent, and making deductions for excessive or unsubstantiated docket entries, the court ordered the respondent to pay $27,000 in costs to the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order to deal with the proceeds of sale from the jointly-owned matrimonial home, specifically requesting a substantial holdback from the respondent's share, primarily for prospective lump sum spousal support, as well as child support arrears and post-separation adjustments.

The parties had already agreed on an equalization payment.

The court dismissed the request for a holdback related to prospective lump sum spousal support, finding insufficient evidence to justify such an award, but ordered a $35,000 holdback for post-separation adjustments, child support arrears, and spousal support arrears.

The mother brought a motion to change a final parenting order, seeking primary care of the parties' daughter (C2) after C2 exhibited extreme resistance to the week-about parenting schedule.

The father sought to enforce the shared parenting order and requested sole decision-making responsibility.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding C2 due to her resistance, which was exacerbated by the mother's overprotectiveness, failure to exercise parental authority, and lingering anger toward the father.

The court ordered a gradual return to a shared parenting schedule for C2 and temporarily suspended the mother's right to make medical and extracurricular decisions due to her unilateral decision-making.

Following a trial where the mother was permitted to relocate with the child to Winnipeg, the court determined the issue of costs.

The mother sought $33,500, while the father argued costs should be fixed at $1,000 due to divided success and his limited ability to pay as an ODSP recipient.

The court found the mother was the more successful party and acted reasonably.

Taking into account the father's financial circumstances and the principle of proportionality, the court ordered the father to pay costs of $15,000, payable in monthly installments of $300.

The mother brought a motion to change a final parenting order, seeking permission to relocate the parties' ten-year-old child from London, Ontario to Winnipeg, Manitoba, where her new husband had secured employment.

The father opposed the relocation and sought primary care and decision-making responsibility.

The court found that the relocation constituted a material change in circumstances and that the move was in the child's best interests, as the mother had been the primary caregiver for most of the child's life and could provide a stable home.

The court permitted the relocation, ordered extended parenting time for the father during school holidays, and granted joint decision-making responsibility with final decision-making authority to the mother.

The mother brought a motion to enforce prior orders for parenting time and family reconciliation therapy, alleging the father alienated their 17-year-old daughter.

The daughter, represented by the Office of the Children's Lawyer, adamantly refused to participate in therapy or see her mother.

The court dismissed the mother's motion to enforce the orders, finding it would be futile and counterproductive given the child's age and entrenched views.

However, finding the father partly responsible for the therapy's failure, the court ordered him to reimburse the mother for half the therapy costs as a sanction for non-compliance.

The respondent father brought a motion to strike portions of the applicant mother's affidavit and for an interim order for joint decision-making and expanded parenting time, including overnights, for their 17-month-old child.

The court struck portions of the affidavit containing improper expert opinion but excused formatting errors.

The court declined to order joint decision-making, leaving day-to-day decisions with the mother as the primary caregiver.

However, finding it in the child's best interests to foster a strong bond with the father, the court ordered a gradual expansion of the father's parenting time, culminating in alternating weekend overnights, subject to a mold inspection of his residence.

The applicant sought costs of $7,500 following three motions concerning parenting time, school registration, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent requested no order for costs.

The court found divided success but determined the applicant was the more successful party on the core issues.

Considering the parties' behaviour, the importance of the issues, and the time spent, the court ordered the respondent to pay $6,000 in costs to the applicant, payable from his share of the net proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent sought costs on a full indemnity basis following a successful motion regarding child access and access transfers.

The applicant opposed, arguing costs should be reserved to the trial judge or fixed at a nominal amount.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and acted reasonably, while the applicant acted unreasonably by refusing to consider alternative approaches to access exchanges.

The court declined to award full indemnity costs, finding no bad faith, and fixed the respondent's costs at $3,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an interim order to relocate with the two children from London, Ontario, to a town north of Oshawa, Ontario.

The relocation was sought due to financial instability, imminent eviction from the family home (owned by the paternal grandparents), and the respondent father's ongoing detention on criminal charges, which had resulted in suspended access and no financial support.

The respondent father opposed the motion, arguing it was premature and that relocation would disrupt the status quo.

The court granted the applicant's motion, finding compelling circumstances in the children's best interests, including the mother's financial and social isolation, the father's inability to provide access or support, and the imminent eviction.

The court emphasized that the father's criminal charges and detention materially affected the status quo and that the applicant's custodial position was likely to prevail at trial.

The applicant sought an interim restraining order and supervised access exchanges due to the respondent's abusive communications, intimidating behavior, and suspected involvement in property damage.

The respondent opposed the restraining order and moved to strike portions of the applicant's affidavit.

The court granted the interim restraining order, largely dismissed the motion to strike, and ordered supervised access exchanges at a family support center or designated public locations, finding the applicant had reasonable grounds to fear for her psychological and physical safety and the child's safety.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking interim sole decision-making responsibility for the parties' child's school enrollment and an order for primary residence.

The parties previously had a final order for joint custody and equally shared care.

The court found a material change in circumstances under section 29 of the Children's Law Reform Act, noting the mother's relocation, the child reaching school age, the father's work schedule and living arrangements, and the father's abusive communications.

The court concluded it was in the child's best interests to reside primarily with the mother and attend school in her district, granting the mother's motion.

The party seeking costs was largely successful in setting aside notices of garnishment issued for child support and section 7 expenses.

He sought costs of $9,568.74 on a full-indemnity basis, while the opposing party argued for no costs or a maximum of $350.

The court noted that both parties lost focus on proportionality, expending time and effort disproportionate to the issues at stake.

Finding the opposing party's conduct unreasonable but not rising to bad faith, the court awarded fixed costs of $2,500.

In a garnishment hearing arising from a family support order, the court considered whether notices of garnishment could enforce disputed section 7 expenses and future periodic child support out of trust funds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court held that section 7 amounts must be readily ascertainable and undisputed before garnishment may issue, and set aside the garnishment relating to hockey and university expenses because prior notice, consent, and complete supporting disclosure had not been established.

The court nevertheless permitted the amount already garnished for university expenses to be retained as a credit against the payor’s eventual obligation.

Although garnishment may attach future periodic child support under Rule 29, the court directed that no further amounts be garnished in the circumstances.