Howard E. Staats

The applicant mother and respondent father sought orders regarding parenting time, decision-making, and child support for their 4-year-old child.

The court ordered a 5-5-2-2 shared parenting schedule, finding it in the child's best interests as he was accustomed to shared care and was starting school.

Joint decision-making was ordered, with the mother having final say on education and the father on extracurriculars.

For child support, the court imputed income to both parents, including undeclared tip income for the mother, and ordered offset child support under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following the Applicant's successful motion for child and spousal support for 2019 and 2020.

The Applicant sought $11,256.21 in costs, while the Respondent proposed $3,500.00, arguing partial success on the underlying motion.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the Applicant presumptively entitled to costs as the successful party.

Considering factors such as the importance and complexity of the issues, the parties' behaviour, and the reasonableness and proportionality of the legal fees, the court awarded the Applicant fixed costs of $8,208.00, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable within 30 days.

The applicant sought child and spousal support for 2019 and 2020.

The key issues were determining the respondent's income, specifically whether corporate amortization expenses and alleged undeclared cash income should be added back, and whether wages paid to the applicant by the respondent's company should be considered spousal support.

The court found that 50% of 2019 amortization and 100% of 2020 amortization should be added back to the respondent's income for support purposes, as they were deemed book entries not reflecting actual depreciation or replacement needs.

The court declined to impute additional cash income due to lack of evidence and also declined to re-categorize the applicant's 2019 wages as support payments.

Child and spousal support amounts were calculated based on the adjusted incomes.

The applicant and respondent separated in 2015 and sought a divorce, parenting orders, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the respondent engaged in a campaign of parental alienation, repeatedly breaching court orders and undermining the applicant's relationship with the children.

The applicant was granted decision-making responsibility and a parenting schedule, while the respondent was found in contempt of court.

No retroactive or ongoing Guideline child support was ordered, but the parties were ordered to share special expenses equally.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $62,250.

The appellant appealed an order made at a settlement conference which found her claim for equalization of net family property to be statute-barred.

The respondent conceded that the settlement conference judge lacked jurisdiction to make that order, but argued it was justified under the Family Law Rules.

The Divisional Court held that while judges can make orders at settlement conferences to promote fairness, notice must be given.

Since no notice was given regarding the limitation period issue, the appeal was granted and the order was set aside.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action for damages arising from the transfer of his house to his former common law spouse and caregiver in 2004.

The appellant, who suffered a catastrophic brain injury in 1998, had transferred the house to the respondent, who held his power of attorney.

The respondent subsequently mortgaged the property to her mother and later transferred it to her mother in satisfaction of the mortgage.

The trial judge found the transfer was a gift and dismissed all claims.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were deficient and failed to address the pleaded claims for breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

A new trial was ordered.

The father brought a motion to change child support, and the mother responded with claims for section 7 expenses and summer child support for their adult child in university.

The court refused to impute rental income to the mother, finding she netted no income from the property.

The court ordered the father to pay his proportionate share of the younger child's gymnastics expenses, rejecting his claim of impecuniosity due to his frequent vacations.

The court also ordered the father to pay table child support during the summer months when the adult child resides with the mother, finding the usual approach inappropriate for the school year but applicable during the summer break.

Following trial in a family law proceeding, the court addressed child contact, child support, a spousal support claim by the respondent, imputation of income, arrears, and the mechanics of paying an agreed equalization amount.

The court held that the powers in ss. 9 and 34 of the Family Law Act are enabling provisions available where the evidence supports their use, and in any event the issue had been sufficiently raised by the consent order leaving the mechanics of payment to the trial judge.

Applying the income-imputation framework, the court found the respondent intentionally underemployed, rejected his financial disclosure as unreliable, and imputed annual income of $68,411.

The spousal support claim was dismissed, child support and arrears were ordered, and the equalization payment was charged as security for ongoing support and reduced by the arrears and related amounts owed.

A property owner sued purchasers for breach of an alleged agreement permitting the return of chattels after the sale of reserve land and buildings.

The court interpreted the written land and chattels agreement and found that ownership of all chattels transferred to the purchasers once the down payment was made.

An alleged later amendment involving waiver of mortgage interest was found unenforceable because the parties lacked consensus ad idem.

The court further found the vendor engaged in a prolonged campaign of harassment, intimidation, and attempts to evict the purchasers after the sale.

General and punitive damages were awarded to the defendants for harassment and mental distress.

A family law trial determined the amount of retroactive child support and reimbursement for special or extraordinary expenses following a motion to change an earlier support order.

The applicant sought child support arrears for years predating a prior order and payment of s.7 expenses including orthodontic treatment and extracurricular activities.

The court applied the principles from the Supreme Court of Canada decision in D.B.S. and found the payor’s conduct blameworthy, including failing to disclose income and failing to provide required tax documentation.

As a result, the court granted retroactive support beyond the typical three‑year limitation and ordered payment of arrears plus the respondent’s proportionate share of special and extraordinary expenses.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 2004 child support order, seeking increased ongoing support and retroactive support due to the respondent's failure to disclose significant increases in his income.

The court found the respondent engaged in blameworthy conduct by ignoring the court order to provide annual income tax returns.

The court ordered ongoing child support based on an imputed income of $50,000 and awarded retroactive child support back to January 1, 2008, totaling $52,632 plus interest, with the applicant permitted to pursue further retroactive support at trial.

The applicant brought a contempt motion alleging the respondent failed to comply with a prior court order requiring financial disclosure, including tax returns, notices of assessment, and a financial statement in relation to a motion to change child support.

Although the respondent did not initially comply with the disclosure deadline, he later produced substantial documentation after retaining counsel and made reasonable efforts to obtain records from the Canada Revenue Agency and former accountants.

Applying the three‑part test for contempt requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a deliberate and willful breach of a clear order, the court found the respondent’s conduct did not meet the required standard.

The evidence did not establish a deliberate or persistent refusal to comply.

The contempt motion was therefore dismissed, though the court found the respondent’s delay in disclosure unreasonable and ordered that the applicant be entitled to costs despite the dismissal.

Following judgment in a civil action involving abuse of qualified privilege, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff sought full indemnification of legal costs beyond the ordinary costs regime.

The court held that the law of costs is not subsumed within the law of damages and that costs must be fixed under the discretion granted by the Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Applying the partial indemnity scale and considering the complexity of the action and counsel’s work, the court fixed costs for fees and disbursements.

The plaintiff brought a defamation action arising from a newsletter article authored by a member of the Six Nations elected council and published by the council.

The article suggested that the plaintiff improperly demanded and received more than $200,000 in public funds without authorization or evidence of work performed.

The court found that the statements conveyed the meaning that the plaintiff was dishonest and had taken advantage of a crisis to obtain payment she did not earn.

Although the publication occurred on an occasion of qualified privilege because the author was reporting to community members on financial matters, the privilege was defeated by malice.

The court concluded that the author knew the statements were false and published them to discredit the plaintiff.

Judgment was granted to the plaintiff with general damages of $60,000.

Following a motion addressing temporary custody and access, child support, and spousal support, the court determined the issue of costs.

The responding party to the underlying motion sought costs on either a full recovery or partial indemnity basis, asserting success on the major issues including custody and the imputation of income for support purposes.

Applying Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, the court held that the responding party was the successful party, though not to the full extent claimed.

The court declined to award full recovery costs because the requirements under Rule 18(14) were not satisfied.

Exercising discretion, the court reduced the claimed hours and awarded a partial indemnity costs amount reflecting what a losing party would reasonably expect to pay.

The appellant was successful on appeal, which resulted in an order for a new trial due to the trial judge's inadequate reasons.

The appellant sought costs for both the appeal and the first trial.

The Divisional Court awarded the appellant $15,000 in costs for the appeal, noting the issues were not complex.

However, because the need for a new trial was not the respondents' fault, the court ordered that the appeal costs not be payable until the completion of the second trial, and that the costs of the first trial be in the cause.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her libel action against the respondents regarding an allegedly defamatory article published in a newspaper.

The trial judge had dismissed the action, finding the statements were substantially true and constituted fair comment, largely based on an adverse credibility finding against the appellant.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for his credibility findings and failed to analyze conflicting or corroborating evidence, rendering the reasons insufficient for proper appellate review.