Jennifer Alexis Krob

The appellant appealed the dismissal of post-divorce enforcement and contempt motions concerning unpaid s. 7 child-related expenses and a life insurance obligation intended to secure support.

The Court of Appeal held it was open to the motion judge to conclude that the respondent had reasonably complied with the s. 7 expense provisions and that substantial indemnity costs were not mandated despite wording in the divorce order, because costs remained discretionary.

The court also upheld the dismissal of the contempt motion, applying the civil contempt test and finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's acceptance of evidence that the respondent's medical condition prevented him from obtaining traditional life insurance.

Although the court stated that the motion judge erred in saying there was no legal basis for a dependent to insure the payor's life under the Insurance Act, the appellant's proposed alternate insurance remedy required a change order and the fresh evidence tendered on appeal was inadmissible.

The applicant and respondent, a same-sex couple, entered into a civil partnership in the United Kingdom.

After relocating to Ontario and subsequently separating, the applicant sought a divorce and corollary relief.

The respondent argued they were not married.

The applicant moved for a declaration that their U.K. civil partnership constituted a marriage under Canada's Civil Marriage Act.

The court granted the motion, finding that failing to recognize the civil partnership as a marriage would violate Canadian public policy and Charter equality rights, as the U.K. prohibited same-sex marriage and only offered civil partnerships.

The court declared the civil partnership a marriage and the parties spouses under the Divorce Act and Family Law Act.

Following a family law motion concerning exclusive possession and sale of the matrimonial home, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving party sought full‑indemnity costs of approximately $15,780 after achieving success on the principal issues of exclusive possession and dispensing with the opposing party’s consent to sale of the home, although the request to strike pleadings was not granted.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered success at the motion, party conduct, settlement offers, and the principle of reasonableness.

The court found the moving party was more successful overall and that the responding party’s conduct, including failure to comply with court orders and disclosure obligations, necessitated the motion.

A fair and reasonable all‑inclusive costs award of $10,000 was ordered.

The applicant wife brought a motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and to stay the respondent husband's pleadings due to his failure to pay prior costs awards and his share of a custody assessment retainer.

The court found that the parties' continued cohabitation was a 'warzone' contrary to the child's best interests and that the husband had the ability to find alternative accommodation.

The court ordered the husband to vacate the home forthwith, granted the wife exclusive possession, and stayed the husband's pleadings until he cured his financial defaults.