Howard E. Warren

The respondent brought a motion seeking increased parenting time with his child and an order to transfer the child to a different daycare location.

The applicant opposed these requests.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion to change the child's daycare, finding that the proposed change would impose an undue travel burden on the child and was not in the child's best interests at that time.

The court granted the respondent an updated parenting schedule, including one full weekday and every Sunday, and ordered that weekend overnight parenting time would commence in June 2019, followed by mid-week overnight parenting time in September 2019, subject to any earlier trial decision.

The court emphasized that the child's best interests are the sole test in parenting time disputes and noted the ongoing parental conflict.

In a family law trial following a 28-year marriage, the court determined the parties' respective incomes for the purposes of child and spousal support.

Both parties were self-employed and sought to impute additional income to the other.

The court imputed the applicant's income at $70,000 after disallowing several business expenses, and imputed the respondent's income at $22,500 due to unsubstantiated expenses and cash income.

The court ordered ongoing child support, retroactive child support subject to a $23,000 credit for the applicant, and ongoing non-compensatory spousal support of $250 per month, but declined to order retroactive spousal support.

This trial decision addresses the termination of spousal support and a claim for a retrospective increase.

The applicant sought to terminate spousal support after 16 years of payments.

The respondent sought a retrospective increase, asserting ongoing need and health issues preventing self-sufficiency.

The court found the respondent's evidence regarding her income, employment, and health to be unreliable, contradictory, and indicative of deliberate efforts to obscure her financial affairs and evade tax.

The court concluded that the respondent had achieved self-sufficiency and was not economically disadvantaged by the marriage or its breakdown to an extent requiring indefinite support.

The applicant's request to terminate spousal support was granted, effective April 30, 2017, and the respondent's claim for a retrospective increase was dismissed.

A $40,500 loan advanced to the respondent for litigation funding was deemed paid by future support payments.

The appellant appealed a spousal support order following a second trial that awarded the respondent $1,900 per month in indefinite spousal support and ordered payment of costs.

The appellant argued the trial judge made numerous factual errors, including findings relating to the respondent’s employment decisions, credibility, and entitlement to compensatory support.

The court held that the trial judge’s factual findings, including that the respondent’s decision to leave employment and relocate was reasonable and that she suffered economic disadvantage due to the traditional marriage roles, were supported by the evidence.

Applying principles of appellate deference to support determinations, the court found no misapprehension of evidence or error in law.

The compensatory support award and costs order were therefore upheld.

Following trial reasons granting judgment to the plaintiffs and dismissing a motion brought by a defendant, the court addressed entitlement and quantum of costs.

Applying rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court found the successful parties presumptively entitled to costs.

The court concluded that the primary defendant had acted in bad faith through conduct including unfounded allegations of fraud and conspiracy, misleading the court in a Mareva injunction motion, and refusing to comply with a memorandum of understanding.

Substantial indemnity costs were therefore warranted.

The defendants were ordered jointly and severally to pay the plaintiffs and intervenors full recovery amounts for fees and disbursements.

Following a prior decision dismissing the main action as an abuse of process, the court addressed costs claims brought by multiple successful defendants and a third party.

The successful parties sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the proceeding was abusive and barred by issue estoppel and contractual arrangements.

The court acknowledged that the action had been dismissed as an abuse of process but noted that the relevant issue estoppels had evolved over time through related litigation and appeals.

Exercising its discretion, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs and instead ordered partial indemnity costs consistent with the ordinary principles in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court fixed all-inclusive costs awards to the successful parties and declined to alter the normal rule regarding cross‑examination costs on affidavits.

The plaintiffs sought to enforce a Memorandum of Understanding resolving disputes arising from the breakdown of a common law relationship and corporate control over a property‑holding company.

The defendant argued the MOU was merely a framework for future agreements and that it had been signed under economic duress caused by earlier court orders and the threat of eviction.

The court found the MOU constituted a final and binding settlement agreement, noting the parties’ clear contractual language, extensive negotiations, and the defendant’s subsequent reliance on the agreement.

Allegations that the agreement was procured under duress or that earlier court orders were obtained by fraud were rejected.

The defendant’s motion to set aside prior orders was dismissed and the settlement was enforced.

A law firm brought a motion under the Solicitors Act to oppose confirmation of an Assessment Officer’s certificate that substantially reduced the firm’s solicitor‑client accounts arising from family law litigation.

The court reviewed the assessment on the standard of error in principle and held that the officer committed several errors, including mischaracterizing the complexity of the matter, improperly relying on the former Costs Grid to reduce agreed hourly rates, rejecting the firm’s team staffing model without evidentiary basis, and criticizing counsel’s skill and competence without expert evidence.

The court found the assessment reasoning arbitrary and result‑oriented.

Rather than remitting the matter for reassessment, the court substituted its own determination of the appropriate fees and disbursements.

The applicant brought a motion to change to terminate or vary spousal support payable under a separation agreement, and to seek reimbursement for their son's post-secondary education expenses.

The court found that the respondent was not cohabiting with her new partner, but imputed an income of $3,000 per month to her due to underemployment, which triggered a termination clause in the agreement.

The court also found a material change in circumstances due to the failure of the applicant's business.

Spousal support was terminated retroactively to January 1, 2011.

The applicant's claim for education expenses was dismissed because he failed to consult the respondent before incurring them.

This is a judgment on a retrial of an application to vary spousal support provisions in a separation agreement dated April 29, 1997.

The applicant sought variation of spousal support effective July 1, 2009, while the respondent opposed the claim and sought termination of spousal support as of 2005 with repayment of all amounts paid since that time.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the substantial increase in the respondent's income and the termination of child support.

The applicant was found to be entitled to variation on contractual, non-compensatory (need-based), and compensatory grounds.

The court ordered spousal support of $1,900 per month commencing July 1, 2009, of indefinite duration, recognizing the applicant's diminished earning capacity resulting from her assumption of domestic and child-care responsibilities during the marriage.