Heather Hansen

The moving party father sought to stay an arbitration award requiring him to pay over $1.8 million in retroactive child support and nearly $800,000 in costs pending his appeal.

The mother opposed the stay and brought a cross-motion for security for costs.

Applying the RJR-Macdonald test, the court found the father raised serious issues to be tried but failed to establish irreparable harm, noting his significant wealth and access to capital.

The court dismissed the motion to stay the child support award, granted a partial stay of the costs award, and ordered the father to post $75,000 as security for the costs of the appeal.

The moving party brought motions for leave to appeal two orders of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The applicant brought a motion to compel the sale of a jointly owned property in the context of ongoing family litigation.

The respondent opposed the sale, arguing it would be contrary to the children's best interests and that she wished to purchase the applicant's interest if successful in her equitable claims at trial.

The court granted the motion, finding that the property was not the principal residence of either party, the applicant was incurring significant carrying costs, and the sale would not negatively impact the children.

The court ordered the property sold and the net proceeds paid into court.

The Applicant brought a motion seeking an order finding the Respondent in breach of prior court orders related to disclosure and timetables, requesting a financial penalty for ongoing non-compliance, and a restraining order.

The court found the Respondent had breached disclosure orders from Justices Kiteley and Hood regarding an ISN file, a Bank of Nova Scotia loan, Mr. Bisceglia's file, and an EquiGenesis Report.

The court ordered a daily financial penalty of $2,500 for each day disclosure remains outstanding, effective April 1, 2022.

The request for a restraining order was dismissed.

In this family law trial, the court determined issues of property ownership, equalization, and support following a 16-year marriage.

The court found that the shares of a lucrative cellular phone business were held in a bare trust equally for the applicant and respondent, but ascribed zero value to the business for equalization due to unreliable financial records.

The court ordered an equalization payment of $291,820.05 to the applicant, dismissed both parties' claims for unequal division and damages, and ordered the respondent to pay $700,000 in retroactive child and spousal support based on an imputed historical income of $2,000,000.

In the context of a complex family law and related debt action, the parties brought cross-motions to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from questioning.

The corporate respondent was petitioned into bankruptcy shortly before the hearing, triggering an automatic stay.

The court ordered the individual respondents to produce relevant corporate and personal records in their possession, control, or power, finding that the bankruptcy stay did not relieve them of their personal discovery obligations.

The court also ruled on various claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege, ordering the disclosure of legal fee amounts but protecting the identity of counsel and legal advice.

In this original family law application, the applicant sought an order permitting the child’s primary residence to be moved from Toronto to Vancouver, while the respondent sought primary residence in Toronto.

Applying the best interests analysis under the Divorce Act and the relocation framework from Gordon v. Goertz, as modified for original applications by Bjornson, the court held that the child’s need for stability and maximum contact with both parents outweighed the advantages of the applicant’s support network in British Columbia.

The court found both parties to be loving and capable parents, but concluded that relocation would significantly disrupt the child’s established home environment and materially reduce meaningful in-person contact with the respondent.

The court ordered joint decision-making, continued equal time-sharing until September 1, 2022, then primary residence with the respondent in Toronto, specified parenting time with the applicant, and modified child support at 50% of table in light of travel costs.

The moving party brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a determination that the parties separated on August 5, 2018, and an order dismissing the responding party's claims for spousal support.

The court found that the parties separated on February 20, 2019, based on the objective evidence of their continued relationship and attempts at reconciliation.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment regarding spousal support, holding that support issues should be determined at trial alongside property and equalization issues to avoid inconsistent findings and ensure a comprehensive analysis.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking a s. 30 assessment, restricted and supervised parenting time for the respondent father, and a restraining order.

The respondent father, who has bipolar disorder, brought a cross-motion seeking equal parenting time and no supervision.

The court dismissed the request for a s. 30 assessment, finding it unnecessary and not in the child's best interests.

The court ordered an incremental increase in the respondent's parenting time and a gradual decrease in supervision, utilizing the paternal grandmother for supervision and handovers.

The request for a restraining order was dismissed, but an expanded no-contact order was implemented.

The Applicant sought an urgent motion to impose strict COVID-19 physical distancing measures on the Respondent and to suspend his parenting time, citing concerns about his adherence to protocols.

The Respondent brought a cross-motion for an immediate 50/50 parenting schedule.

The court dismissed both the Applicant's motion for specific protocols and the Respondent's cross-motion for a new schedule, finding neither urgent nor justified.

The court emphasized the presumption of continuing existing parenting arrangements and ordered the parties to follow government health directives and agree on make-up parenting time for the Respondent.

The applicant in a high-conflict family law proceeding brought a motion for $425,000 in interim disbursements to fund legal fees and expert reports (valuation and income).

The respondent, a wealthy individual with complex financial affairs, conceded his ability to pay spousal support but disputed the necessity of the expert fees.

The court found that a valuation report was necessary to test the respondent's claim that his net family property was zero, but an income report was unnecessary given his concession on means.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $200,000 in interim disbursements and awarded $18,000 in costs to the applicant.

The respondent husband brought a motion for the partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The applicant wife opposed the sale, arguing it was in the children's best interests to remain in the home.

The court found no compelling reason or competing Family Law Act interest to defeat the husband's prima facie right to sale under the Partition Act.

The court ordered the home to be listed for sale at the end of the children's school year and adjourned the issues of income and support to a further motion, while ordering the husband to maintain the status quo carrying costs in the interim.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support of $50,000 per month following a short relationship with a high-income respondent earning $2.88 million annually.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie case for non-compensatory entitlement due to economic dependency created during the relationship.

Noting the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines are not presumptive for incomes over $350,000, the court conducted an individualized analysis of the parties' lavish lifestyle and the applicant's short-term needs.

The court ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support of $25,000 per month retroactive to April 1, 2019.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions in a family law proceeding.

The court reviewed the continuation of a temporary spousal support order for a personal care assistant (PCA) and decided on two Form 14B motions for leave to bring further motions.

The Respondent sought leave to compel production of the Applicant's entire medical file, which was denied due to disproportionality and lack of necessity.

The Applicant sought leave for several reliefs, including striking affidavits, a restraining order, and interim disbursements.

The court dismissed most of the Applicant's requests for leave but granted leave for a motion for interim costs, recognizing the complexity of the Respondent's financial affairs and the need to "level the playing field." The court also clarified its ongoing case management role.

Following a lengthy family law trial where the applicant father was overwhelmingly successful, he sought costs of $1.1 million.

The court found the respondent mother's litigation conduct unreasonable, particularly regarding parenting and income issues, and noted she failed to beat the applicant's offers to settle.

The court awarded the applicant $750,000 in costs on a partial recovery basis.

The court declined the applicant's request to characterize the costs as support to protect them from bankruptcy, finding that costs awarded to a support payor do not fall within the definition of a support order under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act.

The applicant sought an order addressing the income tax consequences of a temporary spousal support order previously made.

The court ordered the respondent to pay a lump sum equal to the applicant's tax liability on the periodic spousal support received in 2018.

The court also directed a review of the ongoing necessity and cost of the applicant's 24/7 personal care assistant.

The court considered costs for four motions in a family law case where both parties had mixed success.

The respondent sought $20,000 in partial indemnity costs, while the applicant, self-represented, argued for costs to be reserved to the trial judge.

The court applied Family Law Rule 24(1) and principles from Serra v. Serra and Boucher v. Public Accountants Council of Ontario.

It found the respondent moderately more successful on child-related issues, assessing her overall success at approximately 20%.

The court awarded the respondent $4,000 in all-inclusive costs, finding it fair and reasonable given the mixed results and the objectives of costs awards.

The appellant appealed from a contempt order under which he was ordered jailed.

On the eve of the expedited appeal hearing, the appellant accepted an offer to settle under which he agreed to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal on a full indemnity scale.

The court found the costs claimed to be wholly disproportionate and far beyond the range of anything that could be considered reasonable, even on a full indemnity basis.

The court fixed costs of the appeal at $30,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes on a full indemnity basis.

Additionally, the appellant sought an extension of time to appeal the order underlying the contempt finding and several other orders, but was largely unsuccessful.

Costs of the motions were fixed at $7,500 on a partial indemnity scale.

No order was made as to costs in relation to the respondent's motion to deny audience to the appellant.

The parties brought multiple motions concerning parenting arrangements, equalization of net family property, and retroactive child support.

The court addressed the need for a fixed parenting schedule, dismissing the applicant's request for a final shared custody order due to ongoing conflict.

Regarding equalization, both parties' motions for an equalization payment were dismissed, but the applicant's request for further disclosure concerning the respondent's business valuation was granted.

The respondent's motion for retroactive child support was also dismissed, deemed a matter for trial.

The applicant mother brought a motion to find the respondent father in contempt of a prior court order requiring his participation in reunification therapy and a section 30 assessment for their son.

The court found the father in contempt of the provisions requiring him to adhere to the therapy agreement and attend sessions, noting his deliberate and willful delay and refusal to cooperate.

The court dismissed the contempt allegations regarding communication with the therapist and payment of the assessor's retainer, as the latter is a payment order not enforceable by contempt under the Family Law Rules.

The father was ordered to pay a $25,000 fine, return the child to the mother, and was sentenced to 30 days imprisonment, which could be reduced or suspended upon compliance with specific conditions.