Jason J. Murphy

This eight-day trial addressed the validity of a Separation Agreement, child support, and parenting arrangements.

The court upheld the Separation Agreement as valid, allowing the applicant to purchase the matrimonial home for $50,000 plus prejudgment interest, with CRA liens to be resolved by the applicant paying the CRA directly.

The respondent's claims to set aside the agreement, for occupation rent, spousal support, and pension equalization were dismissed.

The court ordered the respondent to pay ongoing child support of $556 per month and retroactive child support of $15,819.72, along with 38% of past and future s.7 expenses (except post-secondary, which are 50/50).

Joint decision-making responsibility for the child was maintained.

The respondent brought a motion for child and spousal support, while the applicant brought a cross-motion for decision-making authority regarding the child's vaccinations.

The court determined the parties' incomes by averaging their incomes from 2021-2023 to achieve "rough justice" for interim support purposes.

The applicant was ordered to pay differential child support of $991 per month and spousal support of $3,135 per month, commencing January 1, 2024.

On the vaccination issue, the court ordered the child's immunizations to be brought up to date and granted the father decision-making authority for the COVID vaccine if the mother refuses to follow governmental health authority recommendations or mandates.

The respondent brought a motion to amend his answer to claim occupation rent after the parties had reached a partial settlement on spousal support and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant opposed, arguing that the proposed amendment would cause non-compensable prejudice and was an attempt to circumvent the partial settlement.

The court found that the issues of occupation rent, matrimonial home sale, and spousal support were interconnected and that allowing the amendment would undermine the benefits of partial settlements.

The respondent's motion to amend his answer to claim occupation rent was dismissed, while other amendments were permitted.

The court also ordered the applicant to sign a Miglin release as per the partial settlement, with consequences for non-compliance.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the applicant's claim for security for spousal support was dismissed.

The respondent sought full recovery costs, alleging bad faith and unreasonable behaviour by the applicant, and relying on an offer to settle.

The court found the applicant guilty of bad faith for intentionally sabotaging the respondent's personal injury claim and misrepresenting employment facts to the court.

Applying r. 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered full recovery costs.

Despite the respondent claiming over $22,000, the court fixed the costs at $15,000, emphasizing that even full recovery costs must be reasonable and proportionate, and requiring a detailed breakdown of hours spent.

The applicant sought an order for security for his spousal support claim, requesting $175,000 from the net proceeds of a rental property sold by the respondent to be held in trust.

The applicant, who had previously declared bankruptcy, claimed inability to work due to illness and alleged the respondent was voluntarily underemployed.

The respondent opposed, asserting the applicant was working and had sabotaged her personal injury claim, and that his spousal support claim lacked merit.

The court addressed evidentiary issues concerning the admissibility and authentication of emails, and the applicant's alleged perjury.

The court found the applicant's evidence regarding his inability to work and income lacked credibility.

It held that an order for security for spousal support requires at least a strong prima facie case for support and evidence of financial irresponsibility or wrongdoing by the responding party.

Finding no meritorious claim for spousal support and insufficient grounds for security, the court dismissed the applicant's motion and ordered the release of the interim trust funds to the respondent.

The Applicant, Devaki MacDonald, sought substantial indemnity costs following her success on a mobility motion heard on June 9, 2016.

The Respondent, Andrew Durrant, did not provide responding costs materials.

The court considered the discretionary factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the reasonableness of the Applicant's counsel's rates and time spent, and the principle of indemnity.

The court fixed substantial indemnity costs at $19,000.00, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, and ordered them to be paid forthwith by the Respondent, enforceable by FRO as child support.