James D. S. Whyte

The respondent husband brought a motion to compel the applicant wife to accept his offer to purchase the matrimonial home.

The wife opposed the motion, seeking to enforce a prior consent order that required the home to be listed for sale on the open market.

The court found that the husband's agreement to list the home was disingenuous and that he had unilaterally cancelled viewings to force the acceptance of his offer.

The husband's motion was dismissed, and the parties were ordered to comply with the prior consent order to list the property for sale.

The parties, parents of three daughters, sought resolution on child support overpayments, special and extraordinary expenses (s. 7 expenses), and summer access.

The court found the applicant's s. 7 expense claims reasonable but accepted the respondent's revised calculation of child support overpayment, resulting in a net amount owed to the respondent.

The respondent's request for increased summer access was denied.

The applicant sought costs fixed at $4,500 for a motion heard on October 22, 2018, where the respondent was the moving party and was substantially unsuccessful.

The court found the applicant was the successful party on the underlying motion and was entitled to costs.

The respondent's arguments for deferring the costs decision, including an alleged apprehension of bias, the assignment of a case management judge, and an attempt to re-argue the motion, were rejected.

Applying the Family Law Rules and appellate guidance on proportionality and reasonableness, the court fixed the applicant's costs at $3,470, at the upper end of the partial recovery range, considering the respondent's errors in the underlying motion.

The respondent, David Blair Watts, brought a motion seeking extensive disclosure and procedural relief from the applicant, Karen Enid Elaine Martin, in a family law proceeding.

The motion primarily sought bank statements, credit card records, and proof of certain financial transactions, alleging a "money laundering scheme" and misrepresentation of matrimonial home value.

Watts also requested an order for interim disbursements.

The court largely dismissed Watts's motion, finding many disclosure requests unsubstantiated, factually misguided, or relating to records equally available to him.

The court ordered the applicant to produce specific proof for one sum and a cheque copy if not already provided.

The request for interim disbursements was denied due to Watts's financial capacity, prior unsuccessful motions, and the applicant's compliance with disclosure obligations.

Leave was granted for amended pleadings.

The moving party sought to re-open a previously dismissed motion by introducing fresh evidence of alleged mortgage fraud, and also brought an unscheduled disclosure motion.

The court dismissed the motion to re-open, finding the proposed evidence did not meet the Palmer test as it could have been discovered with due diligence and would not have changed the outcome.

The court declined to hear the unscheduled disclosure motion.

Costs of $5,500 were awarded to the responding party.

The court adjourned the issue of whether the moving party's counsel should be personally liable for costs under Rule 24(9) to allow counsel to obtain independent legal advice.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after nine years of marriage.

The mother sought sole custody of their nine-year-old child, supervised access for the father, and child support.

The father sought shared custody.

The court found that the father had unresolved mental health issues, exhibited aggressive behaviour towards third parties, and was entirely unable to communicate effectively with the mother.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court awarded sole custody to the mother and ordered that the father's access be supervised, subject to a review in six months.

The court also maintained a restraining order against the father and ordered him to pay child support and arrears.