Jenna Beaton

This decision addresses a motion concerning contact between paternal grandparents and their grandchild, Asher Krauter-Maki, in the context of a complex family situation involving a Voluntary Service Agreement (VSA), child protection concerns, and supervised parenting time.

The court considered the best interests of the child under section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the history of supervised parenting time, and the involvement of child protection agencies.

The court restored the status quo on a temporary basis, granting the paternal grandparents weekend contact with the child, with supervised presence of the father, and set directions for future proceedings including costs and further evidence.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the respondent, Bruce Boudreau, was entirely successful in opposing the appellant Randi Jakobsen's appeal.

The court ordered Ms. Jakobsen to pay Mr. Boudreau his costs of the appeal, fixed at $14,000, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order requiring her to pay spousal support to the respondent, whom the trial judge found was her common-law spouse.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the parties were spouses under the Family Law Act, despite the trial judge's erroneous reference to the Divorce Act criteria for spousal support.

The court found this error not material due to significant overlap in statutory criteria and ample evidence supporting the respondent's economic dependence.

The appeal regarding spousal support and trial costs was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to correct a previous endorsement regarding financial issues, and the court also addressed costs arising from a prior custody and access review hearing.

The court declined to award costs because the respondent remained an undischarged bankrupt.

The court partially granted the motion to correct the financial calculations, adding omitted expenses for family counseling services that survived the bankruptcy, but refused to include a $16,679 invoice due to a lack of evidence regarding the services provided.

This appeal concerns a motion to change a custody and access order.

The trial judge rejected a proposed settlement negotiated by the parties during trial without providing reasons, then proceeded to hear the trial and rendered a decision maintaining the children's primary residence with the respondent in the Niagara region rather than allowing them to move to Ottawa with the appellant.

The majority upheld the trial judge's decision on the merits, finding that although the trial judge erred in failing to provide reasons for rejecting the settlement, the findings made after trial confirm the custody order was in the children's best interests.

The majority reduced the costs award from $40,000 to $30,000.

Justice Nordheimer dissented, arguing that the trial judge's knowledge of the settlement terms compromised his impartiality and that the settlement should have been approved.

The applicant in a high-conflict family law proceeding brought a motion for $425,000 in interim disbursements to fund legal fees and expert reports (valuation and income).

The respondent, a wealthy individual with complex financial affairs, conceded his ability to pay spousal support but disputed the necessity of the expert fees.

The court found that a valuation report was necessary to test the respondent's claim that his net family property was zero, but an income report was unnecessary given his concession on means.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $200,000 in interim disbursements and awarded $18,000 in costs to the applicant.

The respondent husband brought a motion for the partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The applicant wife opposed the sale, arguing it was in the children's best interests to remain in the home.

The court found no compelling reason or competing Family Law Act interest to defeat the husband's prima facie right to sale under the Partition Act.

The court ordered the home to be listed for sale at the end of the children's school year and adjourned the issues of income and support to a further motion, while ordering the husband to maintain the status quo carrying costs in the interim.

The mother brought a motion to change seeking unsupervised access to her three children.

Her access had previously been suspended due to severe parental alienation and non-compliance with court orders, including a failure to complete the Family Bridges reunification program.

The court found that the mother had not demonstrated a material change in circumstances, as she continued to engage in alienating behaviours, pursued a campaign against the reunification professionals, and failed to meaningfully engage in ordered therapy.

The court declined to exercise further access jurisdiction over the eldest child, who was 17.5 years old, and dismissed the mother's motion for access to the younger two children until she fully complies with all court orders.

The respondent brought a motion seeking increased parenting time with his child and an order to transfer the child to a different daycare location.

The applicant opposed these requests.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion to change the child's daycare, finding that the proposed change would impose an undue travel burden on the child and was not in the child's best interests at that time.

The court granted the respondent an updated parenting schedule, including one full weekday and every Sunday, and ordered that weekend overnight parenting time would commence in June 2019, followed by mid-week overnight parenting time in September 2019, subject to any earlier trial decision.

The court emphasized that the child's best interests are the sole test in parenting time disputes and noted the ongoing parental conflict.

The appellant sought to set aside a separation agreement executed four years earlier under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act on the basis that the respondent failed to disclose significant assets.

The trial judge found that while the respondent had indeed failed to disclose certain family business interests, shareholder loan payments, and capital income from share sales, these assets were not "significant" within the meaning of section 56(4) in the context of the settlement negotiations.

The trial judge determined that the non-disclosed assets had no bearing on equalization and were irrelevant to support, as the parties had agreed to support based on an income figure substantially higher than the respondent's actual income at the time of separation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the application.

The applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis following a successful motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for failing to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The court found that the respondent's evasive responses and repeated breaches of court orders amounted to bad faith and a deliberate attempt to frustrate the applicant's claims.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a full recovery basis, fixed at $30,539.97, noting that the respondent's conduct justified the higher scale of costs.

The applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act, alleging material misrepresentation and non-disclosure by the respondent regarding the valuation of a company.

The respondent had received letters of intent to purchase the company and was negotiating a buyout of his partner's interest while simultaneously negotiating the separation agreement with the applicant, without disclosing this information.

The court found that the respondent's failure to disclose this information constituted a material misrepresentation, both subjectively and objectively, and breached the duty of utmost good faith in family law negotiations.

The court exercised its discretion to set aside the entire separation agreement, declining to re-write it or address the oppression remedy under the Business Corporations Act at this stage.

Following a lengthy family law trial where both parties experienced divided success, the applicant sought costs on the basis of the respondent's alleged bad faith and failure to disclose.

The respondent sought reimbursement of a $140,000 interim disbursement payment.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including the parties' offers to settle and the respondent's unreasonable conduct.

The court concluded that the respondent's conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith and, given the divided success and the offers to settle, ordered that no costs be awarded to either party.

The respondent's request for reimbursement was also denied.

Following a trial judgment that terminated child support for the parties' two children, the court determined the ongoing quantum of spousal support.

The parties' separation agreement provided for a combined unallocated support payment of $10,000 net per month.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $11,000 gross per month in spousal support effective January 1, 2018, and dismissed the respondent's request for a retroactive order and reimbursement of alleged overpayments.

The applicant sought to set aside a 2010 Separation Agreement, alleging the respondent failed to disclose significant corporate assets and that she signed under duress.

Alternatively, she sought to set aside the support provisions.

The respondent sought to uphold the agreement but requested extensive variations to support, including retroactive termination of child support and imputation of income to the applicant.

The court dismissed the application to set aside the agreement, finding the non-disclosure was not significant in the context of the negotiations and there was no duress.

The court also dismissed most of the respondent's variation requests due to a lack of a material change in circumstances, but granted the termination of child support for the two adult children who no longer lived with the applicant.

The father sought costs against the child's privately retained counsel, Lorne Glass, following the dismissal of a child protection application brought by the 13-year-old applicant.

The father claimed that Mr. Glass acted improperly by bringing an abuse of process proceeding devoid of merit, wasting court time, and failing to seek proper court authorization for his representation of the child.

The court found that Mr. Glass's conduct caused costs to be incurred unnecessarily by commencing a collateral proceeding for an improper purpose—to stay the father's pending custody trial—rather than seeking appointment as counsel under the Family Law Rules.

Despite finding unnecessary costs were incurred, the court applied the "extreme caution" test and awarded only $5,000 in costs against counsel, recognizing the importance of protecting resolute advocacy in child protection matters.

During a family law trial, the respondent sought to qualify his long-time accountant as an expert to provide opinion evidence on his income for spousal support purposes.

The applicant opposed the request on the basis that the evidence was not necessary and the accountant lacked independence.

The court applied the Mohan and White Burgess frameworks and concluded that the proposed expert evidence was not necessary.

Furthermore, the court found the accountant lacked specific expertise in support income determination and lacked the requisite independence and impartiality, having served as the respondent's accountant for nearly four decades.

The request to admit the expert opinion evidence was denied.

Following a high-conflict custody trial where the respondent mother was found to have alienated the children, the applicant father sought costs of over $785,000.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a substantial indemnity basis for the main action and full recovery for specific motions, finding the respondent engaged in unreasonable and bad faith conduct.

The court also apportioned the costs of the section 30 assessment and reintegration therapy, ordering the respondent to pay the majority of these expenses due to her alienating behaviour.

Total costs of $625,337.40 were awarded to the applicant.

The respondent father brought a motion for a psycho-educational assessment of the child, Jesse, to inform a future summary judgment motion regarding Jesse's schooling.

The applicant mother opposed the assessment, citing concerns about its necessity, potential emotional harm, and financial burden.

The court, applying Section 30(1) of the Children’s Law Reform Act and relevant case law, found the assessment to be reasonably necessary given the conflicting affidavits and the child's best interests.

The motion was granted, ordering the assessment to proceed, with the father initially responsible for the costs, subject to review by the summary judgment justice.

The respondent, Y, brought a motion to substitute her psychiatrist for the Family Bridges Aftercare worker, Ms. J. Vanbetlehem, alleging a conflict of interest due to Ms. Vanbetlehem's prior therapeutic services to the applicant, X. The court dismissed Y's motion, finding the issue was res judicata as Y knew or ought to have known about the alleged conflict before trial.

Furthermore, the court found no actual conflict of interest, as Ms. Vanbetlehem's services to X were not therapeutic but advisory, and the Family Bridges program is non-evaluative, with all professionals' goals aligned with the children's best interests.

Y was ordered to comply with the original order to participate in the Family Bridges Program.