Glenda D. McLeod

The appellant appealed a Family Court order compelling compliance with prior security-for-costs and costs orders in ongoing family proceedings.

The Court of Appeal held it lacked jurisdiction because the order was a final Family Court order made only under provincial legislation, engaging s. 19(1)(a.1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court emphasized that such appeals lie to the Divisional Court, not the Court of Appeal.

It also noted procedural options to avoid delay where jurisdictional transfer issues arise, including consent transfer orders or motions to quash.

The parties brought competing interim motions concerning child and spousal support.

The applicant sought support based on his CPP disability income, while the respondent sought to impute income to the applicant due to alleged underemployment.

The court declined to impute income to the applicant at the interim stage, citing an incomplete and untested evidentiary record.

Interim child and spousal support were ordered based on the parties' reported incomes, and section 7 expenses were apportioned.

A disclosure order was also granted by consent.

This family law motion addressed parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and child support for a child born in 2011.

The Applicant Mother sought to maintain the existing de facto parenting schedule and an increase in child support, while the Respondent Father sought to reinstate a shared parenting schedule as per a 2019 Separation Agreement.

The court found that a status quo of the child being in the Mother's primary care had been established for over three years.

Applying the test for changing a de facto status quo on an interim basis, the court determined that changing the current parenting arrangement was not in the child's best interests, considering the Father's delay in seeking reinstatement and his move to a different region.

Consequently, the Mother's primary care arrangement was maintained, and the Father was ordered to pay child support of $775 monthly, retroactive to January 1, 2023, based on his income, as the shared parenting threshold was not met.

The moving party father brought an unopposed motion to reduce his child support obligations and for security for costs.

The court found that three of the four children had reached the age of majority and the responding party mother failed to provide evidence that they remained unable to withdraw from her charge.

Child support was varied on an interim basis to reflect support for one child.

The court also ordered the mother to post $65,000 in security for costs, finding her underlying motion to change to be a nuisance and a waste of time due to her failure to participate, her advancement of statute-barred claims, and her recalcitrant litigation posture.

Following the applicant mother's successful motion to change permitting her to relocate with the parties' child, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The applicant sought full recovery costs of $19,700 based on her success and offers to settle.

The self-represented respondent argued he acted reasonably in opposing the relocation.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $9,000, finding full recovery was not warranted but that the respondent should have expected to pay costs if unsuccessful.

The case involves two motions regarding parenting time for the parties' child.

The respondent sought specified unsupervised parenting time, while the applicant proposed a lengthy transitional schedule due to concerns about the respondent's parenting experience and alleged substance abuse/criminal history.

The court reviewed conflicting affidavits and independent third-party evidence, finding that neither party fully substantiated their serious allegations against the other.

Applying the "best interests of the child" and "maximum contact" principles, the court dismissed the applicant's proposed lengthy transition, ordering an immediate and short transition to regular alternate weekend and weekly parenting time for the respondent, along with child support and benefits.

The respondent brought a motion to change a child support order, seeking termination of support for two children, Andrea and Alysha, on the basis that they were no longer in full-time post-secondary education.

The court confirmed no further child support obligation for Andrea.

For Alysha, child support was terminated effective September 1, 2020, as she was not enrolled in post-secondary education.

The respondent's request for future financial disclosure from the applicant regarding Alysha's potential future enrolment was granted.

The applicant's cross-motion to fix child support arrears was dismissed without prejudice, as it was deemed an issue for final determination, not a temporary motion, and the basis of the calculation was not adequately disclosed to the court or opposing counsel.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal two previous orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The court determined costs following a seven-day family law trial concerning custody, parenting, and child support.

The Mother was found to be substantially successful at trial and acted reasonably, making multiple settlement offers.

The Father made only one offer, close to trial, and was unsuccessful on his main claims.

The Mother was awarded $45,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The Father's request for costs related to a resolved medical records motion was denied, as there was no compelling reason to award costs for a settled matter.

Of the total costs, $4,500 (10%) was deemed enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office, reflecting the proportion of time spent on child support issues.

This decision addresses costs following a motion and cross-motion in a family law matter.

The Respondent Wife sought spousal support, interim disbursements, and financial disclosure, while the Applicant Husband brought a cross-motion for similar relief.

The court found the Wife largely successful, particularly due to the Husband's delayed and incomplete financial disclosure, which was deemed to be in bad faith.

The Wife's offers to settle surpassed the court's eventual order on spousal support and disbursements.

The court awarded the Wife fixed costs of $27,000, with $16,200 enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office, considering the Husband's conduct and the parties' financial circumstances.

The Applicant sought joint custody and a 50/50 parenting schedule, with no child support.

The Respondent sought sole custody and primary residence, with guideline child support.

The court found that the parties were unable to communicate effectively for the children's best interests, citing the Applicant's anger issues, substance abuse, and controlling behaviour.

The court granted the Respondent sole custody and maintained the existing parenting schedule, which did not meet the 40% threshold for shared custody.

The Applicant was ordered to pay guideline child support of $650 per month and a proportionate share of s. 7 expenses.

The applicant brought an urgent motion seeking payment of $85,000 from the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home, citing dire financial circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court, applying a strict test for urgency during the pandemic, dismissed the motion without prejudice, finding that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence, such as an up-to-date financial statement, to demonstrate dire financial need or to clarify the impact of outstanding property equalization issues.

This decision addresses companion motions concerning disclosure, imputation of income, spousal support, and an advance for interim fees and disbursements.

The court found a pattern of late disclosure by the Applicant, Peter Michael Probst, and drew an adverse inference regarding his income.

The court declined to impute income to the Respondent, Tasmeen Shah, due to her documented medical condition.

Interim spousal support was ordered for Ms. Shah, and an advance for her legal fees and disbursements was granted to ensure procedural fairness, given the complexity of financial issues and Mr. Probst's non-disclosure.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful contempt motion brought by the Applicant against the Respondent for breaching two non-depletion orders.

The court had previously found the Respondent in contempt for withdrawing funds from his RRSP to defeat the Applicant's claims.

The Applicant sought full indemnity costs of $24,615.80.

The court found the Respondent acted in bad faith, justifying costs on a full recovery basis, and awarded the Applicant $23,429.30, after a minor adjustment for duplication of counsel time.

Following a family law trial involving parenting, child support, spousal support, and property equalization, the court determined costs.

The respondent achieved greater success at trial than the self-represented applicant.

The court noted the trial was unnecessary and both parties bore responsibility for delays and failing to resolve issues.

Costs were awarded to the respondent, limited to trial preparation and attendance, fixed at $12,750 on a reduced partial indemnity basis.

The applicant brought a motion for contempt against the respondent for allegedly depleting assets in contravention of two court orders that restrained both parties from depleting their property.

The respondent admitted to withdrawing over $100,000 from his RRSPs, claiming it was for living and legal expenses, and argued that the applicant was also in breach of orders.

The court found the respondent in contempt, ruling that the non-depletion orders were clear and that the withdrawals impaired the applicant's claim for support.

The respondent was given until January 18, 2019, to purge his contempt by repaying the withdrawn funds, failing which his pleadings would be struck.

Motion for interim temporary access to a child following an emergency motion.

The applicant mother sought to maintain primary residence and modify the respondent father's access schedule from two overnight midweek visits to evening visits only.

The respondent father sought to set aside the interim order and establish a shared parenting arrangement with significantly expanded access.

The court confirmed the established status quo of the mother as primary caregiver with the father having alternate weekend access and one midweek overnight visit, finding no compelling reasons to change the arrangement and noting the father's conduct in withholding the child created concerns about his willingness to respect the mother's relationship with the child.

This trial addressed parenting, child support, spousal support, equalization of net family properties, and occupation rent following a marital separation.

The court granted a divorce and ordered joint custody of the three children, with a week-about parenting schedule for the two younger children and Madison's schedule to be determined by her wishes.

The respondent was ordered to pay monthly child support and a lump sum spousal support of $9,000.

An equalization payment of $58,792.10 was ordered from the respondent to the applicant, along with a pension transfer.

The applicant's claim for occupation rent was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

The court issued a costs ruling following successful motions by the applicant.

The applicant was found to be fully successful and entitled to costs.

The respondent's arguments for deductions, including legal fees incurred prior to a specific date and an earlier accepted offer, were considered.

The court awarded costs of $16,293.37 to the applicant, to be deducted from the respondent's share of the matrimonial home equity.

The Applicant sought summary judgment to enforce an offer to settle made by the Respondent, which the Respondent's new counsel attempted to repudiate due to non-compliance with subrule 18(4) of the Family Law Rules (lack of the Respondent's personal signature).

The court found that a binding agreement had been formed based on ordinary contract law principles, as there was clear offer, acceptance, and consensus on all essential terms, and the parties had acted in furtherance of the agreement.

The Applicant's motion for summary judgment was granted, validating the settlement, and the original motions for partition and sale and occupation rent were dismissed.