Heather A. McGee

The applicant father sought a transfer of primary care and decision-making responsibility for the parties' two young children.

The respondent mother had engaged in a severe and prolonged campaign of parental alienation, including making multiple false allegations of physical and sexual abuse to the police and children's aid societies, and sabotaging court-ordered reunification therapy.

The court found that the mother's conduct caused significant emotional harm to the children and that she was incapable of supporting their relationship with the father.

The court transferred primary care and decision-making to the father, ordered a 90-day period of no contact for the mother (save for supervised therapeutic time), and found the mother in contempt of a previous access order.

The Executor sought full indemnity costs of $28,911.33 to be paid personally by the Objectors following a hearing with mixed results regarding the passing of accounts.

The Objectors sought full indemnity costs of $19,155.50.

The court found that the hearing had mixed results and neither party made an offer to settle.

Applying the modern approach to estate costs based on fairness and proportionality, the court ordered the Estate to pay fixed costs of $13,500 plus HST to both the Executor and the Objectors.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the applicant's claims against his former father-in-law, the respondents sought costs.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, including the respondents' successful offers to settle and the applicant's aggressive litigation approach.

The court awarded costs of $50,850 to the father-in-law and $10,268 to the former spouse, payable by the applicant.

The applicant in a family law proceeding sought a declaration that his former father-in-law held a half-interest in a condominium in constructive trust for the applicant's former spouse, aiming to increase her net family property for equalization purposes.

The father-in-law brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the trust claim.

The court granted the motion, holding that a person lacks private interest standing to advance a trust claim on behalf of a former spouse because an equalization claim creates only an indirect legal interest, not the direct personal legal interest required for standing.

The applicants objected to the passing of accounts by the respondent estate trustee for both the pre-death and post-death periods.

The court passed the pre-death accounts but denied compensation to the trustee for that period, finding she acted merely as an agent and was already adequately compensated by the deceased.

For the post-death period, the court passed the accounts but reduced the trustee's compensation to 1.5% due to her role in generating hostility and litigation.

The court also ordered the estate to pay the trustee's legal fees of $80,479.97.

Following a four-week parenting trial where the applicant father was granted custody, he sought full recovery of his costs.

The court found that the respondent mother had acted in bad faith throughout the proceeding by spoofing emails, falsifying documents, and actively sabotaging the father's parenting time.

Applying Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the father full recovery of his costs in the amount of $438,188.77, noting that the mother's conduct was designed to inflict maximum emotional and financial harm.

The applicant father sought custody of his young daughter after the respondent mother engaged in a severe pattern of parental alienation, false allegations of abuse, and the fabrication of electronic evidence.

During the four-week trial, the mother produced forged documents, including an altered paternity test and fake emails, before fleeing to India with her younger child.

The court granted sole custody to the father, finding him to be a capable and loving parent, while condemning the mother's extreme misconduct and misuse of electronic evidence.

The respondent sought costs following his successful cross-motion to have the parties' children returned to their habitual residence after the applicant unilaterally relocated them to Windsor.

The applicant opposed the costs request, citing her lack of financial resources.

The court found that the applicant had acted unreasonably and in bad faith by resorting to self-help and repeatedly withholding the children.

Emphasizing that impecuniosity does not confer immunity from adverse cost awards, the court ordered the applicant to pay $3,400 in costs, to be satisfied by a deduction from her share of the net equity in the matrimonial home.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking to change the children's school enrolment from Palgrave to Uxbridge following her unilateral relocation, or alternatively, to have the children attend school online due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent father opposed the motion and sought an order that the children continue attending their current school in person.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding no compelling evidence to rebut the presumption that in-person attendance is in the children's best interests.

The court also held that it was premature to order a change in the school district before pleadings were exchanged and a parenting schedule was determined, ordering the children to continue attending their current school in person.

The Applicant, Ms. Diamond, sought full recovery of $348,624 in legal and expert fees following her success on key issues of spousal support, income for support, and pension division after an 11-day trial.

The Respondent, Mr. Berman, argued for divided success and sought $74,623 in costs.

The court addressed Mr. Berman's excessive costs submissions, affirming the importance of page limits.

It found Ms. Diamond entitled to costs due to her overall success and Mr. Berman's unreasonable litigation conduct, including his self-representation for much of the proceeding and rigid positions.

However, the court declined to award Mr. Berman costs and reduced Ms. Diamond's claim, finding her unreasonable in failing to accept a mid-trial severable offer regarding pension division.

The court also established a general principle against recovering costs for multiple counsel.

Ms. Diamond was ultimately awarded $180,800 in costs.

The respondent sought leave for an urgent motion regarding parenting issues, specifically make-up time, alleging the applicant intermittently withheld their children.

The applicant opposed, providing evidence of the respondent's breaches of agreed-upon COVID-19 social distancing protocols and a unilateral reduction of child support.

The court found that the request for make-up time did not meet the threshold for an urgent or pressing issue, emphasizing the children's best interests and the moving parent's disregard for agreements and children's concerns.

The motion for leave was dismissed, and parties were encouraged to negotiate or mediate a temporary parenting plan and consider a Rule 15 Motion to Change.

The Children and Family Services for York Region (Society) sought a temporary order for the respondent father, J.M., to have supervised access to the child, J., twice weekly.

The respondent mother, C.F., opposed this, requesting access be deferred until Society offices reopened and then be supervised by two CAS workers, specifically excluding family members or friends.

The father consented to the Society's motion but requested an additional term regarding future access discretion.

The court found that the COVID-19 closure of CAS facilities constituted a material change in circumstances.

Applying a contextual analysis, the court determined that the Society's proposal for supervision by approved paternal aunts, remotely monitored by a FIT worker, sufficiently mitigated the risk of harm to the child and promoted the child's best interests, protection, and well-being.

The Society's motion was granted, and the mother's motion was dismissed.

The applicant, John Maximo Clemente, brought a 14B motion for leave for an urgent Case Conference regarding access issues for his three-year-old son, "D".

The respondent, Rachel Sara O’Brien, opposed the motion.

The court reviewed the meaning of "pressing" as per the May 19, 2020 Notice to the Profession, concluding it requires a threshold no less than that for an urgent motion under Rosen v. Rosen.

The court found that the applicant had not seen his son since an altercation in November 2019, which led to criminal charges and a recognizance prohibiting contact with the respondent.

The court determined that the applicant's request did not meet the test for either an urgent or pressing issue, as there were no immediate health, safety, or economic concerns for the child, and the applicant had not engaged in genuine settlement discussions or explored available options for supervised access.

The motion was dismissed, and the parties were encouraged to engage in out-of-court discussions.

The applicant sought an urgent case conference to establish supervised access to her children and to obtain a section 30 CLRA assessment.

The court denied the urgent motion, finding that the applicant failed to meet the urgency test, particularly given the long period of no contact with the children and the lack of evidence regarding available supervisory services or assessors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court emphasized that the issues were not urgent as defined by the Notices to the Profession and lacked practical feasibility.

The applicant sought an urgent motion to address the respondent's withholding of parenting time for their son, alleging a significant breach of a final joint custody order.

The court found the situation met the urgency criteria established during the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing the motion to proceed in writing.

A timetable was set for the respondent's materials and any reply, with parties encouraged to file a proposed draft order for make-up access.

The applicant father sought an urgent motion for resumption of parenting time, alleging the respondent mother breached a prior order by withholding their child due to COVID-19 concerns.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for an urgent order to suspend access, citing the child's vulnerability to the virus.

The court found both motions urgent, applying the test from Thomas v. Wohleber.

While acknowledging the mother's past gatekeeping behavior and finding her in contempt previously, the court emphasized the importance of children maintaining contact with both parents during the pandemic.

The court did not grant immediate police enforcement or suspension of access but ordered a teleconference Case Conference with the Ontario Children's Lawyer (OCL) to facilitate resolution and strengthen the father-daughter relationship.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 pandemic to compel the respondent mother to comply with a December 2019 consent order for parenting time, to expand access, and to release $35,000 to each party from the sale proceeds of their jointly owned home.

The court affirmed that the existing parenting order remains in full force and effect, noting that the mother cannot unilaterally terminate access due to generalized COVID-19 concerns.

The request to expand access was deferred as non-urgent.

The court granted the request to release the funds from the home sale proceeds and awarded costs to the applicant.

The case involved a high-conflict family law trial following a 27-year marriage.

Key issues included spousal support entitlement and quantum, imputation of income to the applicant, division of vehicles, and the division of a federal pension at source.

The court found the applicant entitled to high-range spousal support, declined to impute additional income to her, and determined the "normal retirement date" for pension valuation purposes to be age 60 for Group 1 members of the Public Service Superannuation Act.

The court also addressed equalization payments, pre-judgment interest, and post-separation adjustments.

The applicant sought an interest in the respondent's home based on resulting trust, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and joint family venture, as well as the return of personal property.

The court found no unjust enrichment or resulting trust, concluding that the applicant contributed nothing to the home's acquisition and that the parties' financial arrangements were mutually beneficial, with the applicant also benefiting from creditor protection.

The court emphasized the applicant's lack of credibility and inconsistent financial disclosure.

All claims were dismissed.

The applicant sought to set aside a 2015 separation agreement.

After multiple adjournments and a failure to comply with court orders for financial disclosure and payment of costs, the matter returned to court to assess compliance.

The court found the applicant remained in breach of disclosure orders and had misrepresented her financial and medical circumstances.

Applying Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court dismissed the application in its entirety.