Jacqueline Mills

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to suspend the respondent father's parenting time, alleging he breached COVID-19 protocols by taking the children hiking, to supermarkets, and to his parents' cottage.

The father brought a cross-motion to continue his access and prohibit the mother from surveilling him, after discovering she had placed a tracking device in the children's backpack.

The court declined to suspend the father's access, finding no child protection concerns, but imposed specific COVID-19 safety restrictions.

The court also prohibited the mother from tracking the father and ordered her to produce all surveillance records, utilizing its jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act and the Family Law Rules to manage the high-conflict situation.

The respondent father sought costs following a motion for contempt against the applicant mother.

Although the court did not find the mother in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt, it found on a balance of probabilities that she deliberately and willfully breached a parenting order, necessitating a remedy.

The court awarded the respondent costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing the amount at $15,429 inclusive of disbursements and HST, noting the mother had sufficient capital to pay.

Following a successful motion to change a final family law order, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving party had succeeded in terminating spousal support and varying child support due to reduced income, though a related contempt motion failed.

Applying Rules 24 and 18 of the Family Law Rules and the principles in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, the court assessed success, offers to settle, and the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct.

The responding party’s failure to provide reliable financial disclosure and repeated lack of preparation for conferences constituted unreasonable conduct that increased litigation costs.

The court rejected both the full indemnity claim and the responding party’s request for no costs, fixing a fair and reasonable total costs award.

In a high-conflict parenting dispute, the mother sought a declaration that the father breached a prior court order requiring him to make all reasonable efforts to support a shared parenting schedule.

Evidence showed the children had lived exclusively with the father for several years and had become estranged from their mother.

The court found multiple instances where the father failed to co-parent or support the residential arrangements, including unilateral decision‑making, permitting the children to determine their residence contrary to the order, and failing to meaningfully participate in court‑ordered reunification therapy.

A separation agreement resolving financial matters did not displace the prior parenting order.

The court declared the father in breach of the order but granted him sole custody given the children’s ages, the passage of time, and the existing status quo.

In a contested divorce trial, the court determined parenting arrangements, equalization of net family property, and spousal and child support.

The parties shared joint custody of their child on a week-about schedule but disputed travel protocols, passport control, income for support purposes, and the valuation of several assets.

The respondent claimed large family loans evidenced by promissory notes to reduce his net family property; the court rejected the claim, finding the evidence unreliable and concluding the alleged debts were not proven.

The court determined the respondent’s income for support purposes exceeded his declared income and ordered ongoing spousal support and set-off child support.

The respondent was also ordered to pay a substantial equalization payment and maintain life insurance securing his support obligations.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking unsupervised interim access to the child in accordance with a prior court order, while the applicant mother brought a cross‑motion to suspend the access order and require supervised access at a centre along with interim sole custody.

The mother alleged physical abuse and safety concerns during access visits, relying on affidavits from relatives and friends, photographs of minor bruising, and statements attributed to the three‑year‑old child.

Investigations by the Children’s Aid Society and police found no protection concerns or evidence of excessive force by the father.

The court found the mother’s evidence largely hearsay and unsupported by objective evidence, and concluded she had repeatedly resisted and interfered with court‑ordered access.

The court reinstated the previously ordered schedule progressing from supervised access to unsupervised and overnight visits, and dismissed the mother’s cross‑motion.