Glenda 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 applicant brought a motion for specified financial disclosure from a company owned by the respondent's parents, where the respondent was currently employed, and for the respondent's father to attend for questioning.

The applicant alleged the respondent was shielding income to reduce his child and spousal support obligations.

The court granted the motion in part, ordering the non-party company to produce client lists and financial statements, and ordering the respondent's father to attend for questioning, finding it would be unfair for the applicant to proceed to the motion to change without this information.

The applicant wife brought a motion for summary judgment for equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The central issue was whether substantial advances made by the respondent husband's parents during the marriage were gifts or subject to a resulting trust.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, rebutted the presumption of resulting trust, and characterized the advances as gifts.

The court ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $592,308 and spousal support arrears, and granted the applicant security over the former matrimonial home.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, interim child support, and the sale of the matrimonial home, while the respondent sought interim exclusive possession of the home.

The court determined interim support based on a respondent income of $225,000 and applicant income of $25,000, applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines with child support formula.

The court ordered interim child support and spousal support retroactive to the commencement of the application.

The respondent’s request for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home was dismissed, and the court ordered the home sold under the Partition Act, subject to a 30‑day opportunity for the respondent to buy out the applicant’s interest.

Following a bitterly contested motion regarding child custody where the respondent was wholly successful, the respondent sought costs of $13,671.87 on a full recovery basis, including costs for prior appearances, and requested they be payable personally by the applicant's counsel.

The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $4,000 for fees plus disbursements and HST, limited to the motion before the court.

The court declined to order costs against counsel personally and refused to delay payment until the sale of the matrimonial home, ordering payment within 30 days.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim spousal support, and the respondent mother brought a cross-motion for interim child support.

The father claimed he was unable to work due to a workplace injury and was receiving social assistance.

However, WSIB records revealed he had received extensive retraining but refused to seek employment in those fields.

The court imputed an annual income of $21,320 to the father based on minimum wage.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and Child Support Guidelines, the court ordered the father to pay $320 per month in child support and the mother to pay $320 per month in spousal support, offsetting the two amounts.

The mother was also ordered to make a one-time spousal support payment of $2,000 to the father.

The moving party brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, including retroactive support.

The parties had a shared custody arrangement for one child, while another child resided primarily with the responding party.

The court ordered the responding party to pay interim child support based on his employment income, with adjustments for the changing custody arrangements over time.

The court also found the moving party had established a prima facie case for interim spousal support due to her medical condition and financial dependency, ordering support in the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

A costs decision following multiple urgent family law motions concerning custody, residence of the children between provinces, access, and the appointment of representation for the children.

The court found that success on the motions was divided but that the respondent on the underlying motions achieved comparatively greater success, including an order appointing counsel for the children rather than a s. 30 assessment.

Applying s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court determined that costs should be apportioned due to divided success and that the conduct of the responding party was not sufficiently unreasonable to warrant substantial indemnity costs.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the more successful party.

Payment of the costs award was deferred pending the division of property or further order due to the other party’s financial circumstances.