Gil D. Rumstein

The applicant father and respondent mother separated in 2017.

The father sought custody and access to their 13-year-old son, while the mother sought sole custody and an order that the child not be forced to have contact with his father against his will.

The court found that the father had been emotionally and verbally abusive to both the mother and the child, leading to the child's severe estrangement and refusal to see his father.

Despite numerous attempts at reunification therapy and court-ordered access, the child's mental health deteriorated.

The court granted sole custody to the mother and ordered that any access be at her sole discretion, taking into account the child's wishes.

The father was granted decision-making authority solely regarding the child's interest in a property in Sri Lanka.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking the resumption of access with his 12-year-old son, which had been temporarily suspended by a prior order pending therapeutic services.

The child exhibited severe trauma and strongly opposed contact with the father.

The court dismissed the motion for interim supervised access, finding it could cause significant emotional distress and undermine the ongoing reunification therapy process, but ordered increased frequency of the child's counselling sessions.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2010 child support order, seeking to establish the current amount of child support for an adult child attending university away from home, and to calculate retroactive support.

The respondent father argued that the child should contribute to her own expenses and that RESP funds should reduce his obligation.

The court found that the RESP was funded solely by the applicant and did not reduce the respondent's share.

The court ordered the respondent to pay his proportionate share (61%) of the child's post-secondary expenses, fixed at $1,220 per month, plus a reduced pro-rated table amount of $390 per month for the months the child lives at home.

The court also ordered retroactive support from January 2014, the date of effective notice, rather than 2012 as requested by the applicant.

Following a four‑day family law trial concerning equalization of net family property and the sale of the matrimonial home, the successful party sought costs.

The court found that the applicant had clearly succeeded on the primary issue of equalization and had obtained the same equalization payment previously offered to settle.

The respondent had not advanced a clear or realistic settlement proposal and pursued a lengthy trial over a relatively modest amount.

Although the applicant achieved only partial success regarding the precise terms governing the sale of the matrimonial home, the court held that the overall result aligned more closely with the applicant’s position.

Costs were therefore awarded to the applicant in the amount claimed.

Following a family law motion involving parenting issues, the applicant sought costs of $3,710 on a partial indemnity basis, representing approximately 60 percent of legal fees incurred.

The respondents argued that the motion result was mixed because the applicant sought supervised access for the father with the younger child, which the court did not order.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court considered the presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs along with factors such as the reasonableness of the parties’ behaviour and the divided success on the motion.

The court concluded that the success on the motion was shared.

As a result, no costs were awarded.

The court determined interim child and spousal support pending trial in a family law proceeding.

The parties’ children resided with the respondent in the matrimonial home while the applicant paid the mortgage, taxes, and insurance after separation.

The court held that these payments, exceeding the Child Support Guidelines amount, satisfied the applicant’s interim child support obligation.

The court also ordered interim spousal support of $1,250 per month, imputing income to the respondent based on her skills and education despite claims of disability.

The interim order was intended to remain in effect until trial, subject to variation if the trial did not proceed as scheduled.

The parties separated after a 41-year marriage.

The respondent sought an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act, arguing that the applicant recklessly depleted assets through a failed business venture and undisclosed debt refinancing.

The court dismissed the claim for unequal division, finding that the applicant's business decisions, while poor, were not made in bad faith or with the intention to deplete assets.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the agreed equalization payment of $34,301.09, reimbursed the applicant for certain carrying costs, and set the terms for the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking to dispense with a biological father’s consent to a step-parent adoption under s. 138 of the Child and Family Services Act, the successful respondent sought costs.

The court confirmed the presumptive entitlement of the successful party to costs under the Family Law Rules and the discretionary authority under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

While the respondent claimed over $25,000 in legal fees, the court found the matter was narrow and not complex and reduced the recoverable amount after considering duplication of work caused by a change of counsel, excessive docketing practices, and clerical tasks billed as legal work.

The court also considered the unsuccessful applicant’s limited financial means and the need to avoid negative financial impact on the child.

Costs of $3,400 inclusive of disbursements and tax were awarded, payable in monthly installments.

The applicant step-father sought an order dispensing with the biological father's consent to the adoption of a four-year-old child.

The biological father had been absent from the child's life since birth due to living in Morocco, but had paid child support and recently sought access upon returning to Canada.

The court found that dispensing with consent was not in the child's best interests, as the biological father had shown a commitment to the child and there was no evidence he posed a harm or negative influence.