Jacqueline M. Mills

The appellant, Elaine Nairne, appealed a trial judge's order regarding spousal support quantum and duration, arguing that the trial judge failed to adequately consider the significant income disparity and differing marital contributions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's holistic assessment of the spousal support award, which included a substantial interest-free mortgage benefit to the appellant on the matrimonial home.

The court affirmed the principle of significant deference to trial judges in spousal support decisions, while noting that the trial judge's approach to assessing compensatory and needs-based entitlement was arguably narrow.

A minor modification was made to the order regarding the specific employer reference for the respondent's retirement.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a previous parenting order, seeking primary residence and decision-making for the parties' two children.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the mother's illicit drug use, undisclosed Children's Aid Society involvement, and failure to communicate or comply with the right of first refusal.

Applying the best interests of the child factors under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court issued a temporary order granting primary residence and final decision-making authority to the father, while ordering supervised parenting time for the mother pending an Office of the Children's Lawyer investigation.

The Applicant brought a motion to change, seeking a declaration of the Respondent's 2018 income for the purpose of calculating and enforcing child and spousal support for 2019, based on a prior consent order.

The Respondent cross-moved, opposing the declaration, arguing that capital gains from a share sale should be excluded as non-recurring income to avoid "double-dipping" and seeking to terminate child support for all three children.

The court found jurisdiction to make the income declaration, ruled that the Respondent's full Line 150 income (including taxable capital gains) should be used for support calculations as per the consent order, and terminated child support for the second child who had graduated and was independent, but continued it for the third child.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his motion to change a spousal support order.

He argued that the respondent was no longer entitled to compensatory support, that more income should be imputed to her, that his own imputed income of $100,000 was too high, and that an increase in child support constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no material error or serious misapprehension of evidence by the motion judge.

The court upheld the findings that the respondent made reasonable efforts to become self-sufficient, the appellant failed to prove a material change in his income, and the increased child support did not reduce the respondent's need for support.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule an appeal that had been adjourned due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court directed that the appeal proceed by video conference before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

Detailed procedural directions were provided regarding the electronic filing of documents, factums, and compendiums using a password-protected drop box.

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 brought a motion to change a 2014 final order, seeking to terminate spousal support and vary child support, alleging a material change in circumstances due to reduced income and health issues.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought orders for sole decision-making authority for their child, dispensation of travel consents, and reimbursement for reunification therapy costs.

The court found that the respondent failed to establish a material change in circumstances regarding his income or health, maintaining his imputed income at $100,000 per year.

Child support was increased from $577 to $910 per month due to the child residing exclusively with the applicant.

The motion to vary spousal support was dismissed, and the applicant's imputed income remained at $35,000.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making authority for the child, dispensed with the respondent's consent for travel and government documents, and ordered the respondent to pay $1,190 for his share of reunification therapy.

The existing joint custody order was not varied.

This case addresses the duration of spousal support in a 17-year traditional marriage where the Applicant sacrificed her career for child-rearing while the Respondent advanced his.

The parties had settled most issues, including equalization and the quantum of spousal support, but disagreed on whether support should have a fixed termination date, be indefinite, or be subject to a review.

The court found the Applicant had a strong entitlement to both compensatory and non-compensatory support due to economic disadvantages from the marriage and ongoing uncertainty in her employment.

Applying the Divorce Act and relevant jurisprudence, the court ordered indefinite spousal support, subject to variation upon a material change in circumstances, declining to impose an automatic termination or review date.

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.

The applicant brought a motion to stay a timetable order pending the determination of a motion for leave to appeal.

The timetable order required the applicant to attend questioning and a settlement conference by specific dates, which she argued she could not meet due to professional commitments and medical issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to meet the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay.

The court held that the timetable order was discretionary, raised no serious issue to be tried, and that the applicant had not established irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The applicant brought a motion to change a court-ordered schedule for questioning and a settlement conference, citing commitments to a national project and a diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant had not provided sufficient specific details for her commitments, had previously managed her project and litigation simultaneously, and that the application was time-sensitive due to the respondent's unemployment and the applicant's history of delaying proceedings.

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to court-ordered timetables to ensure the just and timely resolution of cases under the Family Law Rules.

The respondent husband brought a motion for interim costs of $125,000 under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules to defend against the applicant wife's claim for an annulment and to advance his own claim to enforce their marriage agreement.

The applicant, who has a very high net worth, conceded the merit of the respondent's case and the reasonableness of the fees, but argued he could fund his own litigation.

The court found the respondent was unemployed, had significant debts, and could not afford his legal fees.

The motion was granted, and the applicant was ordered to pay $125,000 as an advance on costs, plus $10,000 for the costs of the motion.

The applicant brought a motion for further financial disclosure and leave to question the respondent in advance of the respondent's scheduled motion for interim disbursements under Family Law Rule 24(12).

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was contrary to a prior case management order that set a strict timetable and directed that disclosure disputes be handled at the hearing of the main motion.

Furthermore, the court held that the requested disclosure was excessive, unnecessary, and disproportionate to the issues raised on an interim costs motion, and the applicant failed to meet the test for questioning under Rule 20(5).

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing her motion to disqualify the respondent's counsel and granting a cross-motion to strike certain material from her motion record based on settlement privilege.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge applied the correct tests for disqualification and settlement privilege, and that the proposed appeal did not raise issues of general importance extending beyond the interests of the parties.

The Applicant sought to disqualify the Respondent's counsel, Harold Niman and Niman Gelgoot & Associates, citing a conflict of interest due to Niman's prior representation against the Applicant and her family in other family law disputes, and alleging Niman possessed confidential information.

The Applicant also argued the Respondent's retention of Niman was tactical and intended to intimidate her.

Niman brought a cross-motion to strike certain evidence from the Applicant's affidavits, including settlement-privileged communications and documents related to a complaint against Dr. Douglas Weir to the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion to disqualify, finding no "sufficient relationship" between the prior retainers and the current proceeding, and no evidence that Niman actually possessed relevant confidential information.

The court granted Niman's motion to strike, upholding settlement privilege and the statutory prohibition against admitting professional regulatory proceedings in civil matters.

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.

This was a costs decision following a family law appeal concerning custody, relocation, and trial fairness.

The appellant father succeeded only in having the matter returned to the Ontario Court of Justice for clarification and amendment of the final order, but failed in his primary objective of overturning the relocation and custody result.

The court held that the respondent mother's success on the more substantial issues was greater in light of the issues involved, the work done, and the time spent.

Costs of $13,500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes were awarded to the respondent mother, payable within 60 days.

The father appealed a final order of the Ontario Court of Justice granting the mother sole custody of a young child and permitting relocation to England, with specified access to the father.

The father alleged legal error in the relocation analysis, trial unfairness arising from late-produced evidence, misapprehension of facts, and deficiencies in the wording and enforceability of the final order.

The court held the trial judge correctly applied the best interests of the child test and made no palpable and overriding errors in assessing evidence regarding relocation, parental cooperation, and family connections.

However, the appellate court found that when settling the wording of the final order the trial judge should have considered proposed clarifications and additions rather than limiting changes to those consented to by both parties.

The appeal was therefore allowed in part, affirming the custody, relocation, and access determinations but remitting the final order to the trial judge to address wording, completeness, and enforceability issues, and determining that a July 2014 access visit satisfied the Toronto access requirement subject to travel reimbursement.

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.