Hélène C. Desormeau

The parties, the child's uncle (primary caregiver) and the biological parents, brought various motions regarding custody, access, mobility, and contempt.

The father sought to have the uncle found in contempt for denying physical and telephone access.

The mother sought primary residence or increased access.

The uncle sought to relocate with the child to Perth.

The court struck portions of the father's affidavit for containing argument and case law.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the father had been unreasonable and prioritizing the child's best interests.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the uncle's loss of housing in Cornwall, the court permitted the uncle to temporarily relocate to Perth with the child.

Both parents were granted increased access, but requests for police enforcement clauses were denied to prevent further conflict.

The parties separated after a 13-year high-conflict relationship.

Both sought sole custody of their two children.

The court found both parents capable but unable to communicate effectively, ordering joint custody with a parallel parenting regime.

The father's request to impute income to the mother was dismissed.

Due to the shared and split custody arrangements, and considering the financial realities of both households under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines, the court ordered no ongoing child support, though fixed arrears were ordered against the father for a prior period.

The father's request for a restraining order was dismissed.

The parties sought costs following several motions, including an urgent motion without notice brought by the applicant to allow the children to attend their grandfather's funeral, and a subsequent motion where success was divided on issues of parenting time, sale of the matrimonial home, and a section 30 assessment.

The court found that success was divided on the main motion and neither party beat their settlement offers, resulting in no costs being awarded for those appearances.

However, the court awarded the applicant costs on a substantial indemnity basis for the urgent motion, finding the respondent's refusal to allow the children to attend the funeral was unreasonable.

The respondent was ordered to pay $1,725.79 in costs.

The appellant appealed a family arbitration award regarding the calculation of spousal support under a separation agreement.

The core issue was the interpretation of 'previously equalized property' and whether the gross or net value (after contingent tax liabilities) of the respondent's pension should be excluded from his income to avoid 'double dipping'.

The Arbitrator accepted the joint actuary's methodology of deducting the gross equalized portion from the gross pension received.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error of law in the Arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement or her reliance on the actuarial evidence.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, assault, uttering threats, and unlawful confinement against his intimate partner.

The unlawful confinement charge was dismissed by consent.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible regarding the sexual assault and rejected the accused's defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent, finding he failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent and relied on mistakes of law.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault and assault, but acquitted of uttering threats.

The father brought a motion for equal time sharing of the children and the immediate sale of the matrimonial home.

The mother brought a cross-motion for the appointment of a social worker to conduct a parenting assessment under s. 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court granted the father's request for week-about access, finding both parents capable and that a specified schedule would lessen conflict.

The court dismissed the motion for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home to maintain stability for the children pending trial.

The court granted the mother's cross-motion, ordering a s. 30 parenting assessment with costs shared equally.

The applicant, the common-law spouse of the deceased, brought a dependent's support claim against the deceased's intestate estate.

Prior to the deceased's death, the applicant transferred approximately $570,000 to herself while acting as his Power of Attorney.

The court found that despite these transfers, the estate had not adequately provided for the applicant's future needs and the deceased's moral obligations.

The court awarded the applicant the farm house property, the funds already received, and an additional cash payment, totaling approximately half of the estate's value.

The applicant brought a motion for contempt against the respondent for breaching an interim access and communication order regarding their child, Jaxon.

The respondent was found in contempt and failed to purge it.

The court imposed a conditional discharge, modified the access schedule to grant the applicant extended access, and ordered the respondent to pay costs.

The decision emphasized the child's best interests and the negative impact of parental conflict, implementing measures to shield the child from further adult disputes.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for criminal harassment, arguing his guilty plea was not informed.

He believed there was a joint submission on sentence that would spare him a criminal record, confusing an agreement on facts with an agreement on sentence.

Applying the framework from R. v. Wong, the Superior Court of Justice found the appellant established a reasonable probability he would have opted for a trial had he known he risked a criminal record.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.

This costs decision followed a five-day trial concerning unjust enrichment, joint family venture, and unpaid monies.

The applicant, Danielle Belair, sought over $100,000, while the respondent, Marcel Bourgon, pursued over $76,000.

The trial judge awarded Ms. Belair a nominal amount of $818.64 and dismissed all other claims.

Considering the parties' conduct and Mr. Bourgon's reasonable settlement offers, which were significantly better than the trial outcome for Ms. Belair, the court fixed costs at $75,673.85, payable by Ms. Belair to Mr. Bourgon.

The applicant sought an equal division of the net proceeds from the sale of a property held as tenants in common.

The respondent, who was also the estate trustee of the deceased co-owner, sought an unequal division based on a claim of unjust enrichment, arguing her efforts increased the property's value after the co-owner's death.

The court dismissed the respondent's unjust enrichment claim, finding she failed to establish a corresponding deprivation or the absence of a juristic reason for her contributions, which were deemed negligible in relation to the property's value increase.

The court ordered an equal division of the remaining net proceeds.

The parties separated after a five-year common law relationship.

The applicant sought over $100,000 for unjust enrichment and a joint family venture, claiming she significantly contributed to the respondent's dog grooming and breeding business.

The respondent counterclaimed for unpaid rent and repair costs.

The court dismissed both primary claims, finding the applicant exaggerated her involvement in the business and the respondent's invoices had already been paid.

The court awarded the applicant $818.64 for her share of jointly owned dogs and puppies, and granted the respondent sole ownership of the dogs.

In a family law costs ruling following competing motions for temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and interim spousal support, the court considered the costs presumptions and discretionary factors under the Family Law Rules and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court held that neither party met the offer-to-settle consequences in Rule 18(14), and that success on the underlying motion was divided on the two principal issues of possession and support.

Although both parties advanced some unreasonable positions in their costs submissions, the court found that the overall result and litigation conduct justified no costs order.

Each party was required to bear their own costs of the motion.

This costs decision followed bifurcated motions concerning child access and disclosure of Children's Aid Society records.

The court addressed the admissibility of "without prejudice" settlement offers for costs purposes, finding an exception to privilege when issues are adjudicated.

Considering divided success and party conduct, the Applicant was awarded partial costs.

The court considered costs following a 16-day trial concerning custody of and access to a child.

Both parties sought full recovery of costs, alleging unreasonable behaviour by the other.

The court found divided success, noting the applicant was successful in obtaining generous unsupervised access, while the respondent had greater success on ancillary issues.

Neither party's offer to settle was found to be more favourable than the final order.

Despite some unreasonable behaviour from both sides and the applicant's failure to comply with disclosure, the court was not persuaded that the applicant's actions constituted bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

Considering all factors, including the divided success and the proportionality of costs, the court determined that no costs should be awarded to either party.

The Respondent, Dr. Norman Lauzon, brought a motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The Applicant, Ms. Louise Mignault, brought a cross-motion for exclusive possession or mutual possession, and for interim spousal support.

The court granted Dr. Lauzon exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, finding continued cohabitation intolerable and the balance of convenience favouring him due to health considerations.

The court also ordered Dr. Lauzon to pay interim spousal support to Ms. Mignault in the amount of $1,600.00 per month, imputing income to him from his RRSPs and applying the "interim" exception to the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines due to compelling financial circumstances.

In this family law trial, the court determined custody, access, travel, restraining order, and police-enforcement issues for a young child amid serious but unproven allegations of sexual and physical abuse by the father.

Applying the best-interests analysis under the Divorce Act and Children's Law Reform Act, the court found significant credibility problems on all sides, held the abuse allegations were not proven on a balance of probabilities, and assessed the future risk of harm as low.

Sole custody was granted to the mother because of conflict, prior domestic violence, and a power imbalance, while the father received a graduated unsupervised access regime rather than supervised access.

The court also imposed significant travel-document restrictions on the father, granted a restraining order, and declined to include a police enforcement clause.

The father brought an interim motion for child and spousal support.

The mother opposed the motion and sought to impute income to the father, arguing he was intentionally underemployed as a real estate agent.

The court declined to impute income, finding the father's reduction in income was reasonable given his diagnosis of an anxiety disorder and his efforts to supplement his income.

The court also declined to include the father's past RRSP withdrawals in his income, as the funds were depleted.

The court ordered the mother to pay net child support and interim spousal support based on the parties' actual incomes, and directed her to reinstate the father on her employment health benefit plan.

The father brought a motion to change a final order regarding access to the parties' child, arguing that the child's commencement of school drastically reduced his access time.

The mother sought a variation for child support and contribution to special expenses.

The court found a material change in circumstances for both access and support.

The court ordered a revised access schedule granting the father more frequent access during the school year and extended summer access.

The court also imputed income to the father at minimum wage, finding him intentionally unemployed, and ordered him to pay child support and share special expenses equally, with a deduction for his increased transportation costs.

The respondent father brought a motion for interim primary residence of the parties' child, seeking to relocate the child to Ottawa.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion for interim primary residence and child support.

The court found that the status quo was that the child resided primarily with the mother.

The court held that a temporary order should not disrupt the status quo without compelling reasons, and that the father's proposed move to Ottawa was untested and would be a significant disruption to the child.

The court ordered that the child reside primarily with the mother, with the father having access three weekends per month and bi-weekly evenings.

The father was ordered to pay child support.

The father was awarded costs of $7,500 as he was the successful party based on his offer to settle.