James B.C. Edney

The applicant sought an order for production of financial disclosure from third parties (the respondent's father, family corporations, and a family trust) pursuant to the Family Law Rules and Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant and respondent are involved in family proceedings concerning child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The applicant sought to set aside a domestic contract and alleged the respondent's reported income had declined significantly post-separation despite evidence of substantially higher cash flow during the marriage.

The third parties opposed production, arguing the motion was premature and that the domestic contract must first be set aside.

The court found the motion was not premature, that the applicant had met her onus, and that disclosure was necessary to fairly determine the respondent's true income and net family property.

The court ordered production of financial statements and corporate tax returns from the companies and details of non-arm's length expenses from all third parties, subject to confidentiality terms.

The applicant sought interim spousal and child support from the respondent in a common law relationship that lasted approximately 16 years.

The respondent's parents and brother brought a summary judgment motion for possession of the matrimonial home.

The court granted the summary judgment motion for possession, finding that the applicant had no possessory rights as a common law spouse and no valid constructive trust claim.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on gifts and housing benefits provided by his parents and ordered that interim spousal support commence upon the applicant's vacation of the property.

The court deferred determination of the quantum of support and child support pending further submissions.

The moving party husband sought a stay of a lower court order requiring him to produce an updated financial statement, pending the disposition of his appeal.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the husband failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as compliance with the order would not constitute attornment to the court's jurisdiction.

The balance of convenience favoured the wife, given the fundamental obligation for financial disclosure in family law proceedings.

The husband was ordered to comply with the production order and pay costs.

The applicant father sought an order for unsupervised parenting time with his two young children, H. (8) and O. (4), after seven months of no contact following his arrest on serious criminal charges, including assault and sexual assault.

The respondent mother opposed, insisting on supervised parenting time due to concerns about family violence and the children's safety.

The court, applying the best interests of the child principle and considering family violence factors under the Divorce Act, found that supervised parenting time was necessary.

The father's request for unsupervised access was denied.

The motion was adjourned to allow the father to propose suitable supervisors, who must provide affidavits confirming their willingness and duty to prioritize the children's best interests.

The court also requested the Office of the Children's Lawyer to reconsider its involvement to conduct a clinical investigation.

Following a motion regarding interim support and control of a business, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The applicant sought $26,072.49 based on unaccepted offers to settle, while the respondent argued for costs to be deferred to trial, claiming mixed success.

The court found the applicant was the successful party and declined to defer costs.

The court awarded the applicant $17,000 in costs on an elevated partial indemnity scale of 66%, reflecting condemnation of the respondent's failure to adhere to previous court orders.

The respondent sought leave to amend her Answer to claim retroactive and ongoing child support for her adult daughter from a previous relationship.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing the claim was legally untenable because the daughter was no longer a 'child of the marriage' under the Divorce Act.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed amendment pleaded facts that could support a finding that the daughter remained a child of the marriage at the material time, and that recent Supreme Court jurisprudence has called into question the strict jurisdictional bar on retroactive support for adult children.

The parties brought competing motions in a high-conflict family law dispute.

The applicant sought control of the family business, AKA Creative Inc., and the return of his belongings, arguing the respondent breached a prior ex-parte order.

The respondent sought interim child support, spousal support, and proportionate sharing of special expenses based on an imputed income of $300,000 for the applicant.

The court granted the applicant's motion, finding the respondent had not respected the prior order and that the applicant, as majority shareholder, should manage the business.

The court partially granted the respondent's motion, imputing an income of $50,000 to the applicant and $18,720 to the respondent, and ordered go-forward child support and proportionate sharing of private school expenses.

The applicant sought urgent relief regarding access to their fifteen-month-old child, Samuel, including unsupervised access and a modified 2-2-3 schedule.

The respondent opposed, arguing the matter was not urgent and brought a cross-motion for continued primary residence and the existing interim access schedule.

The court, applying the "urgency" test from the Chief Justice's Notice to the Profession during the COVID-19 pandemic, found the initial access issue urgent but the request for an equal time-sharing schedule was not.

The court expanded the applicant's interim unsupervised access schedule, emphasizing the child's best interests and the parents' prior co-parenting involvement, while noting the Children's Aid Society found no ongoing violence.

The applicant's request for a 2/2/5 schedule was adjourned for a more fulsome record.

The father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of his two young children to Massachusetts, their habitual residence, after the mother wrongfully retained them in Ontario following a consented visit.

The court found that Massachusetts was the children's habitual residence, the father had custody rights which he was exercising, and the mother's retention was wrongful due to deceit.

The court dismissed the mother's defence of grave risk of harm, finding the alleged abuse insufficient to meet the high threshold.

The children were ordered to be returned to Massachusetts.

This endorsement confirms Justice Diamond's appointment as the case management judge for the proceeding.

It addresses the scheduling of a long motion concerning jurisdiction (Ontario or Massachusetts) and a potential Hague Convention application for the return of children to Massachusetts.

The judge directs that the Hague Convention application should ideally proceed earlier and separately from the jurisdiction issue.

This decision addresses a costs application following two motions in a family law dispute.

The applicant father sought over $117,000 in costs after successfully obtaining orders to prevent the respondent mother from unilaterally changing the children's residence and securing temporary joint custody and increased parenting time.

The court found the mother acted in bad faith by breaching a consent order and deceiving the father about the move.

Despite this finding, the court significantly reduced the requested costs to $24,500 in fees and $2,500 in disbursements, plus HST, emphasizing the principles of reasonableness and proportionality in family law costs awards, and noting the applicant's bill of costs included irrelevant or overlapping charges.

The applicant father moved for summary judgment to enforce an alleged settlement agreement in a family law dispute.

The court found that a settlement was contractually formed through an exchange of correspondence between counsel, as the respondent mother's purported revocation was not effectively communicated.

However, the court exercised its discretion to refuse enforcement of the settlement due to material changes in the children's circumstances, the mother's prior misconduct regarding their residency, and the paramount consideration of the children's best interests, which necessitated further investigation by the Children's Lawyer.

The father's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to strike the respondent's pleadings for his willful non-compliance with a prior child support order and to vary the child support amount.

The respondent had unilaterally reduced payments and failed to file materials for the motion, requesting an adjournment which was denied.

The court found the respondent's conduct to be willful, flagrant, and calculated disobedience, intended to prolong litigation and deprive the children of support.

The court struck the respondent's pleadings and increased the child support amount based on the current custody arrangement and the respondent's substantial income.

This is a costs endorsement following motions to change a child support order.

The court previously determined that no support was owing by either party as of December 31, 2014, and set out the respondent's ongoing support obligations for two children.

Both parties sought costs.

The respondent sought $18,654.56 and the applicant sought $10,000.

The court found the respondent was the substantially successful party based on the positions taken at the hearing and the offers to settle.

The respondent's offer was close to the final result, while the applicant's offer was significantly less favourable.

The court awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $7,000, payable at $500 per month starting March 1, 2015.

Both parties brought motions to change a child support order dated December 9, 2011, and the child support terms in their separation agreement dated May 27, 2002.

The applicant sought to impute the respondent's income at $375,000 per annum, require payment of guideline table amounts and section 7 expenses, and obtain retroactive support and RESP relief.

The respondent sought to fix his income at $218,211 per annum, impute the applicant's income at $140,000 per annum, reduce support for a child attending university away from home, and obtain retroactive adjustments and overpayment credits.

The court found material changes in circumstances, fixed the respondent's income at $218,211 per annum and the applicant's at $100,000 per annum, determined that private school expenses are section 7 expenses to be shared proportionally, found the guideline amount inappropriate for the child attending university away from home, and declined to make retroactive orders.

The court issued a consolidated child support order of $5,517 per month effective January 1, 2015, incorporating both table support and section 7 expenses.