J. Alison Campbell

The parties, parents of a young child, both brought motions in a high-conflict family law proceeding.

The applicant father sought to admit a Family Court Clinic Assessment report from a prior child protection proceeding into evidence, while the respondent mother sought increased supervised parenting time.

The court held that under section 98 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the report itself is inadmissible without the mother's consent, but the assessor may be called to testify regarding their opinions and recommendations.

The court also granted the mother's request for increased parenting time, adding one weekday evening to her schedule.

The parties separated after a 33-year relationship during which they had three children.

The applicant sought spousal support, child support, damages for unjust enrichment, and a restraining order.

The court found the respondent lacked credibility and imputed his income at $100,000 per year due to non-disclosure and voluntary underemployment.

The court awarded the applicant a $330,000 lump sum for indefinite spousal support, finding it adequately compensated her for her contributions to the joint family venture, thereby dismissing the separate unjust enrichment claim.

A restraining order was also granted against the respondent.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for an interim 50/50 parenting schedule and to compel the applicant mother to return with the child to Ottawa.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion to adjourn the parenting issue pending a family counsellor's recommendations, to remain in Burnstown, and for child support.

The court adjourned the parenting schedule issue to obtain the counsellor's views but ordered interim videoconference access for the respondent.

The court permitted the applicant to remain in Burnstown due to her high-risk pregnancy and the respondent's prior consent, ordered the child to attend school virtually, and ordered the respondent to pay child support and disclose employment and mental health records.

The parties separated after a 24-year marriage during which the respondent built a highly successful software company and the applicant was a stay-at-home parent.

Post-separation, the respondent unilaterally redeemed the applicant's shares in the company and sold the business for $2.2 million without notice to the applicant.

The applicant sought an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The court found that an equal division would be unconscionable given the respondent's unilateral actions, lack of disclosure, and the windfall from the sale.

The court awarded the applicant an unequal division payment of $174,920.28.

The court also imputed investment income to the respondent and employment income to the applicant for the purposes of calculating retroactive and ongoing spousal and child support.

The parties separated after a 16-year marriage with four children.

The father, a denturist with his own business, sought sole custody and child support, while the mother sought spousal support, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The court determined the parties' respective incomes, declining to impute income to the mother for pursuing a Master's degree and finding the father's income to be $90,000 based on a mortgage application.

The court ordered the father to pay an equalization payment of $110,666.79, plus $56,498.62 owing under a Maher contract, which was found to be a valid and enforceable civil contract.

The father was also ordered to pay retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support.

Following a motion in which the applicant obtained interim spousal support, the court determined costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant sought $10,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the respondent acted unreasonably in denying entitlement to spousal support.

The court held the respondent’s unsuccessful legal argument did not amount to bad faith or unreasonable conduct.

Applying the presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs and considering proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded partial indemnity costs.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support and to amend her application to include a claim under the Divorce Act.

The parties had divorced in 1987 but resumed cohabitation in 1990 for 23 years.

The respondent argued the claim was statute-barred and the court lacked jurisdiction.

The court found the applicant met the definition of a spouse under the Family Law Act due to the lengthy post-divorce cohabitation and could also claim as a former spouse under the Divorce Act.

The court granted leave to amend the pleadings and ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $1,500 per month.

Following a two-day family law trial determining the quantum of spousal support, the court addressed costs.

The applicant spouse had obtained a result more favourable than her pre-trial settlement offer and was found to be entirely successful at trial.

Applying Rules 24(11) and 18(14) of the Family Law Rules, the court held that the presumption in favour of costs to the successful party applied and that the respondent’s intransigence necessitated the trial.

After reviewing the bill of costs and applying an overall reasonableness standard rather than a line‑by‑line assessment, the court fixed costs payable by the respondent.

Following a four‑day family law trial concerning equalization of net family property and the sale of the matrimonial home, the successful party sought costs.

The court found that the applicant had clearly succeeded on the primary issue of equalization and had obtained the same equalization payment previously offered to settle.

The respondent had not advanced a clear or realistic settlement proposal and pursued a lengthy trial over a relatively modest amount.

Although the applicant achieved only partial success regarding the precise terms governing the sale of the matrimonial home, the court held that the overall result aligned more closely with the applicant’s position.

Costs were therefore awarded to the applicant in the amount claimed.

Following the breakdown of a long traditional marriage, the court was required to determine the quantum and duration of spousal support where entitlement was conceded.

The applicant had largely remained out of the workforce during the marriage to care for the children and maintain the household, while the respondent advanced a successful career.

The court found the applicant suffered economic disadvantage arising from the marriage and was entitled to compensatory support under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court ordered staged monthly support, including an initial reduced amount while the applicant occupied the matrimonial home rent‑free, followed by higher support and later reduced support with income imputed to the applicant after 12 months.

Retroactive spousal support was also awarded dating back to shortly after the respondent was placed on notice of the claim.

The parties separated after a 41-year marriage.

The respondent sought an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act, arguing that the applicant recklessly depleted assets through a failed business venture and undisclosed debt refinancing.

The court dismissed the claim for unequal division, finding that the applicant's business decisions, while poor, were not made in bad faith or with the intention to deplete assets.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the agreed equalization payment of $34,301.09, reimbursed the applicant for certain carrying costs, and set the terms for the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The applicant husband brought a motion seeking interim spousal support following a long-term marriage.

The parties had been married since 1976 and separated in 2009.

The husband alleged dramatically reduced business income due to declining work and heart-related medical limitations, while the respondent argued he had greater earning capacity and was understating income.

The court noted that interim support determinations aim to achieve "rough justice" and cannot resolve factual disputes that must be determined at trial.

Considering the parties’ financial circumstances and the applicant’s health limitations, the court ordered interim spousal support of $850 per month, with costs reserved to the trial judge.

Following a motion and cross‑motion in a family law dispute involving parenting time, interim child support, interim spousal support, sale of the matrimonial home, and exclusive possession, the respondent sought costs.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court considered success, reasonableness of conduct, complexity, and the parties’ reasonable expectations regarding costs.

The court found the responding party was substantially successful on the parenting, support, and exclusive possession issues, and that costs should be awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

While some disclosure delays by the opposing party were noted, the conduct did not justify elevated costs.

Costs were fixed at $8,500 plus HST and disbursements.

Following a seven‑day family law trial concerning custody, relocation, child support, and access, both parties sought full recovery costs.

The court found that success at trial was clearly divided: the applicant obtained sole custody, income imputation, and child support, but failed on her late‑raised request to relocate the child to Nova Scotia, while the respondent succeeded in maintaining the child’s residence in Ontario and obtaining a graduated access regime but failed on other financial and custody claims.

The court also found litigation misconduct by the respondent, including failure to pay child support despite sufficient income and inadequate financial disclosure.

However, the applicant’s late and inadequately supported mobility claim was central to the trial and undermined her entitlement to costs.

Balancing the divided success and litigation conduct, the court declined to award costs to either party.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, permission to relocate to Nova Scotia with the parties' two-year-old child, and child support.

The respondent father sought joint custody, opposed the relocation, requested increased access, and claimed undue hardship regarding child support.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding a lack of cooperation and trust between the parents.

The relocation request was denied as the mother's plan was hastily formed and lacked concrete employment prospects, while the child's relationship with the father needed to be facilitated in Ottawa.

The court ordered a graduated access schedule for the father, imputed income to him for child support purposes, and dismissed his claim for undue hardship.