Glenda D. McLeod

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 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.

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 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 costs following a partially successful motion for disclosure from a non-party, Blue Water Metals.

The court found the Applicant more successful than Blue Water Metals, which had unreasonably resisted disclosure.

Considering the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, including the importance of the issues, the parties' conduct, and counsel's rates, the court awarded the Applicant $7,000 in costs against Blue Water Metals.

No costs were ordered against the Respondent.

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.

The appellant appealed from a Superior Court decision upholding an Ontario Court of Justice decision dismissing his motion to appoint private counsel for his two children.

The appellant sought to have private counsel appointed to conduct an investigation into the children's wishes regarding access arrangements, similar to what the Office of the Children's Lawyer would do.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding that the children had been consulted by OCL counsel two years prior and had indicated no desire for change, that they were well-functioning and not exhibiting behavioral or academic issues, and that appointing counsel would not be in their best interests.

The Superior Court upheld this decision, finding no palpable and overriding error.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appointment of counsel for children is discretionary under the Family Law Rules and must focus on the best interests of the children, to which deference is owed to the motion judge's assessment.

The appellant appealed a family arbitration award that dismissed his claim to reduce spousal support.

The arbitrator found that the termination of child support was a material change in circumstances, but its only effect was to improve the appellant's financial position, thus not justifying a decrease in spousal support.

The appellant argued the arbitrator erred by not applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAGs) to recalculate support.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under section 17(4.1) of the Divorce Act, a court must only make a variation justified by the material change, rather than conducting a de novo review.

Since the original consent order was not based on the SSAGs, they had no application to the variation.

On appeal from a summary judgment decision, the husband challenged the characterization of over $1.3 million in investments derived from his parents' advances during a 37-year marriage.

The central issue was whether the funds constituted gifts to the parties or were held in resulting trust for the parents or as loans.

The motion judge found the presumption of resulting trust had been rebutted and characterized the advances as gifts to both parties.

The husband also challenged the suitability of summary judgment, the striking of portions of his affidavit, the treatment of dissipated assets, and the charge placed on the matrimonial home.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision on all grounds.

The applicant father appealed a decision dismissing his motion for the appointment of private counsel for the parties' two children.

The father had previously sought to change the time-sharing arrangement after his retirement, but withdrew the claim after the Office of the Children's Lawyer presented the children's wishes to maintain the current schedule.

The appeal court found that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in determining that appointing private counsel was unnecessary, given the children had been represented two years prior and were doing well.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant and respondent, former romantic partners, brought cross-motions regarding interim custody, access, and child support for their child, Bryce.

The applicant sought an order confirming primary care and child support based on the respondent's stated income of $76,703.00.

The respondent sought a shared parenting regime with equal time and child support reflecting that arrangement.

The court found it could not resolve the factual disputes regarding the historical status quo of parenting time due to untested evidence.

Prioritizing the child's best interests and maximizing meaningful contact with both parents, the court ordered joint custody, with the child's primary residence remaining with the applicant.

The respondent was granted extended access, including alternating weekends from Friday after school to Monday before school, and every Wednesday after school to Thursday before school.

Child support was ordered at $697/month based on the respondent's income.

No costs were awarded due to the mixed result.