Jeffrey Wilson

Following a 12-day family law trial primarily focused on the children's estrangement from the applicant father and the respondent mother's mobility claim to Arizona, both parties sought costs.

The court found that success on the parenting issues was divided, as the father did not achieve a custody reversal and the mother was not permitted to move.

Neither party was found to have acted in bad faith or to be markedly more reasonable on the parenting issues, resulting in no costs awarded for that portion.

However, the mother was more successful and reasonable regarding the financial issues, particularly the valuation of the father's professional building.

The court awarded the mother $20,000 in costs inclusive of disbursements and HST for the financial issues.

The parties separated after a high-conflict marriage.

The children resided primarily with the mother and became estranged from the father.

The father sought a 90-day custody reversal to repair the relationship, alleging parental alienation, while the mother sought to relocate with the children to Arizona.

The court found the children were unjustifiably rejecting the father and that the mother had failed to facilitate their relationship.

The court denied the custody reversal but ordered joint custody with a strict access schedule for the father, and denied the mother's mobility application.

The court also resolved financial issues, valuing the father's professional building at $600,000 and ordering him to pay retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support.

The father sought expanded parenting time with overnight access for his young daughter, while the mother opposed the expansion, citing behavioral concerns and the child's continued breastfeeding.

The court ordered overnight access to commence in August 2015, finding that a delay would allow the parties to work with a family counselor to improve communication and reduce conflict.

The court also awarded partial costs to the father for the mother's failure to timely investigate and disclose options regarding her Japanese residency permit renewal, which she had presented as an emergency requiring immediate travel with the child.

The applicant child was successful on a motion for interim relief against the respondent father, obtaining a declaration of parentage, child support, and interim disbursements.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The applicant sought full recovery costs based on an offer to settle and the respondent's unreasonable behaviour.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that the issues were novel or of public interest.

Finding the respondent's behaviour unreasonable and that the applicant beat her offer to settle, the court awarded costs of $32,523.72.

The plaintiffs successfully defended an appeal from a certification order and sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the defendant's conduct was part of a litigation strategy to obfuscate and delay.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, finding no reprehensible conduct to justify substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs fixed at $35,000, finding the defendant's costs outline of approximately $34,400 to be a more reasonable reflection of the work required for two half-day hearings.

The 15-year-old appellant commenced an application for child support against her father.

The motion judge ordered that the appellant must be represented by a litigation guardian, relying on the Rules of Civil Procedure.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the order, finding that the Family Law Rules provide a complete code for the participation of children in family law proceedings.

The court held that under the Family Law Rules, a capable minor who is a party to a child support proceeding is a 'special party' who may be represented by a lawyer without the need for a litigation guardian.

The 15-year-old applicant sought leave to appeal several interlocutory orders made in her application for child support against her biological father.

The motion judge had ordered the appointment of a litigation guardian, denied interim child support and interim disbursements, and restrained the applicant from contacting the respondent's family.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal solely on the issue of whether a minor requires a litigation guardian to sue a parent for child support, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the order and noting the issue's broad importance.

Leave to appeal was denied on all other grounds.

A 14-year-old applicant commenced an application for child support against her alleged biological father, seeking private school tuition.

The respondent relied on a 1999 agreement with the applicant's mother settling child support on a final basis.

The parties brought multiple interim motions.

The court ordered that the parties be referred to by initials to protect the respondent's children, required the applicant to appoint a litigation guardian, and ordered the applicant and her mother to attend for questioning.

The court dismissed the applicant's motions for interim disbursements, temporary child support, and summary judgment, finding no immediate need for support and that the enforceability of the 1999 agreement was a genuine issue for trial.

The mother brought a motion seeking a custody and access assessment pursuant to s. 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act in a high‑conflict parenting dispute involving a young child.

The father opposed the motion, arguing that an assessment should only be ordered where “clinical issues” or pathology are present and that the mother’s professional background as a child psychiatrist would create an uneven playing field.

The court reviewed the divergent jurisprudence regarding whether clinical issues are a prerequisite to a s. 30 assessment and concluded that no such requirement exists in the statute.

After considering factors including ongoing parental conflict, unsuccessful mediation attempts, and the child’s age and inability to express views, the court held that an assessment would assist both the parties and the trial judge.

The court ordered a parenting assessment and directed that the parties share the costs equally.

In a child protection matter under the Child and Family Services Act, the father sought costs related to two appeals to the Superior Court of Justice arising from procedural orders made by an Ontario Court of Justice judge during settlement conferences.

The first appeal had been allowed on procedural fairness grounds after the settlement conference judge extended trial timelines without notice or consent.

A second appeal later became moot after the underlying protection application was dismissed and interim orders were varied.

The court held that, given the narrow basis of the earlier appeal decision and the ultimate dismissal of the protection application by another judge who had a full evidentiary record, it was inappropriate to assess the parties’ conduct for costs purposes.

Exercising its discretion, the court declined to award costs on either appeal.

Appeal from an Ontario Court of Justice order made at a settlement conference in a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act.

The settlement conference judge removed the matter from trial assignment court and extended the timeline under Rule 33 of the Family Law Rules without notice, relying on settlement conference materials and discussions.

The appellate court held that settlement conference briefs and discussions are protected by Rules 17(23) and 17(24) and cannot form the basis for adjudicative orders absent consent or proper notice.

The judge erred in extending the statutory timeline based on settlement conference materials and without procedural fairness.

The appeal was allowed and any future request to extend timelines was directed to be heard by a different judge.

The moving party father brought a motion at the Court of Appeal for unsupervised access to his child pending his appeal of a Superior Court decision dismissing his Hague Convention application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act, which restricts such motions to the Superior Court or Family Court.

In the alternative, the court held that even if it had jurisdiction, it would dismiss the motion on the merits due to a real risk that the father would remove the child to Peru.

The mother appealed a motion judge's order finding her in contempt for failing to encourage the child's relationship with the father and taking active steps to discourage it.

The mother argued the motion judge erred by proceeding despite dispute resolution clauses and her request for a stay due to the father's financial non-compliance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge did not err in proceeding with the urgent matter involving high conflict and alleged parental alienation.

The Court also upheld the contempt finding, noting there was ample evidence, including the mother's own admissions, to support it.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment denying her spousal support following a 32-year marriage.

The trial judge found that after equalization, the appellant had a net worth of approximately $1.4 million and that the parties' ability to maintain their pre-divorce lifestyle had diminished due to the respondent's job loss, not the divorce.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the Divorce Act and his conclusion that spousal support was not warranted given the appellant's assets, earning capacity, and remarriage.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of Adoption Services to place their international adoption on hold.

The hold was initiated after the estranged sister of one of the applicants made historic sexual abuse allegations just days before the applicants were scheduled to travel to finalize the adoption.

The Director placed the hold and required a new home study without providing the applicants an opportunity to respond or detailing the allegations.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the Director breached procedural fairness by failing to give the applicants a meaningful opportunity to respond.

The court also found the requirement for a further home study unreasonable given the unchallenged expert evidence refuting the risk.

The Director's decision was quashed and the original approval was reinstated.

The appellant wife appealed an order that terminated her spousal support and was marked as a final order, despite being made on a motion for interim support.

The Divisional Court found the motions judge lacked jurisdiction to make a final order on an interim motion.

The Court also held the motions judge erred in principle by terminating support without considering the wife's ongoing economic disadvantage and financial need, despite imputing an income to her.

The appeal was allowed, and interim spousal support was ordered at a reduced rate based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines until September 2008.

The applicants, former foster parents, brought a motion to admit several affidavits on their judicial review application.

The respondents filed responding and reply affidavits.

The Divisional Court noted that the indiscriminate filing of affidavits likely offended the rule in Keeprite, but concluded it was not feasible to parse the inextricably woven evidence paragraph by paragraph.

The court admitted all affidavits, except for a portion of one affidavit that the applicants agreed to strike, noting it would separate the wheat from the chaff during the hearing.

The appellant mother brought an application to stay an order of the lower court that permitted police intervention to enforce custody provisions.

The Court of Appeal granted a temporary stay of the police intervention provisions, ordered the Children's Lawyer to represent the children to determine their views and preferences, and adjourned the matter.

The mother was still required to comply with the underlying consent judgment regarding custody.

The mother appealed a trial judgment granting sole custody to the father and ordering that her access be supervised until she received a 'clean bill of health' from a psychiatrist and a specific psychologist was involved in the decision.

She also appealed the trial judge's order awarding the father full recovery of costs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, striking the conditions requiring a clean bill of health and the psychologist's involvement as they were too vague and constituted an improper delegation of judicial authority.

However, the court upheld the requirement for supervised access.

The court also refused to admit fresh evidence generated during a confidential appellate mediation process.

The appeal of the costs award was dismissed, as the mother's conduct was unreasonable and the father had made a successful offer to settle.