Heather Hansen

At a case conference, the court addressed scheduling issues arising from the late delivery of the respondent's disclosure and expert reports.

The court directed that the applicant's motion for interim disbursements proceed in writing due to counsel scheduling conflicts.

The court also scheduled a combined trial management and settlement conference and declined to reserve the costs of the case conferences to the trial judge, ordering that neither party recover costs.

The moving party brought a motion for a refraining order against the Director of the Family Responsibility Office to prevent the suspension of his driver's license due to $3,000 in support arrears.

The moving party had unilaterally deducted $3,000 from his support payment, claiming a set-off for indirect payments made.

The court found that while the moving party made out a prima facie case for variation, he did not come to court with 'clean hands' because he took matters into his own hands by creating his own set-off against periodic support rather than waiting for the court to resolve the issue.

The motion for a refraining order was dismissed, and the moving party was ordered to pay costs to his former spouse, who had to respond to an improperly included claim for suspension of enforcement.

The applicant was successful in dismissing the respondent's summary judgment motion in a family law proceeding and sought costs of approximately $207,000.

The respondent argued the costs were excessive and proposed $31,000 plus HST, citing the applicant's alleged unreasonable behaviour and delay.

The court found neither party acted unreasonably and determined that partial recovery was appropriate.

After deducting fees for services rendered prior to the motion, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $124,186 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

In this case management endorsement, the court addressed the timetabling of several outstanding motions in a family law proceeding.

Both parties sought to bring motions to vary a temporary support order.

The court declined to permit these motions to proceed, noting that temporary orders are not meant to be changed pending trial and that the respondent had failed to provide a complete financial statement.

The court scheduled the respondent's motion for production of a lawyer's file and the applicant's motion for interim disbursements, and set dates for a settlement conference and trial.

The respondent husband brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant wife's claims to set aside their separation agreement.

The wife alleged that the husband failed to provide adequate financial disclosure regarding his business interests and income, and that she signed the agreement under duress.

Applying the framework from Hryniak and the amended Family Law Rule 16, the court found that there were genuine issues requiring a trial regarding both the adequacy of the husband's financial disclosure and the wife's allegations of duress.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed to trial.

At a case conference to manage a family law proceeding, the court addressed multiple outstanding procedural issues, including financial disclosure, questioning, and a long-delayed motion for summary judgment.

Noting the lack of progress and the logjam created by the pending summary judgment motion, the case management judge prioritized the summary judgment motion and established a strict timetable for its hearing, deferring other motions.

At a case conference in a family law proceeding, the court addressed a procedural logjam.

The applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement based on lack of disclosure and duress, while the respondent had a pending motion for summary judgment to dismiss those claims.

The court prioritized the scheduling of the summary judgment motion over the applicant's motions for further disclosure and interim support, finding that resolving the summary judgment motion was necessary to advance the case.

A costs decision following the dismissal of the father's motion to require the mother's child support claim to be dealt with solely under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act rather than the Family Law Act.

The mother, as the successful party, sought costs of $15,480.65.

The father argued for no costs or nominal costs, contending the motion raised a novel legal issue.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $12,480.65, finding the father acted unreasonably by bringing an ill-advised jurisdictional challenge that delayed the substantive child support proceedings, and by failing to accept the mother's offer to settle.

The respondent father, a resident of New York, brought a motion to dismiss an application for custody and child support brought by the applicant mother, a resident of Ontario.

The father argued that the Ontario Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter and that the mother should instead proceed under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act (ISOA).

The father also raised forum non conveniens arguments based on fairness and practicality concerns.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Ontario had jurisdiction based on the real and substantial connection test, as the child was born in and resided in Ontario with the mother.

The court further held that the father failed to discharge the burden of proving that ISOA was clearly more appropriate than proceeding under the Family Law Act.

A motion for summary judgment brought by the parents seeking termination of a Crown wardship order and placement of two children in their permanent care with society supervision.

The parents sought final orders regarding access to foster parents.

The Children's Aid Society initially sought a termination of the Crown wardship order and society supervision, but later amended its position to seek more structured access between the children and foster parents.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the summary judgment motion, arguing that conflicting evidence regarding the children's views and preferences required a trial.

The court granted the parents' summary judgment motion, finding no genuine issue for trial despite the children's expressed wishes to maintain contact with foster parents, based on uncontested material facts regarding the foster parents' inappropriate conduct and manipulation during the reunification process.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order compelling the respondent to deliver a sworn Form 13.1 Financial Statement and additional financial disclosure requested by the applicant’s expert.

The underlying application sought to set aside a separation agreement on the basis of duress and inadequate financial disclosure, while the respondent had brought a pending motion for summary judgment.

The court held that the Family Law Rules impose a mandatory obligation to provide a sworn financial statement and full and frank disclosure.

Given the complexity of the respondent’s corporate interests and the dispute over the adequacy of disclosure at the time the agreement was executed, further disclosure was necessary.

The respondent was ordered to deliver a properly executed financial statement and produce the requested corporate and financial records.