Jennifer C. Johnston

Following the death of the children's mother, the maternal grandmother and the non-biological father figure both sought temporary custody and primary residence of the two young children.

The court considered the best interests of the children under the Children's Law Reform Act, noting the children's need for stability after multiple recent moves.

The court ordered that the children reside with the grandmother during the school week to facilitate online learning, and with the father figure on weekends.

No temporary order for legal custody was made, but the father figure was granted medical decision-making authority.

The moving party father brought a motion to change a 2008 separation agreement, seeking to terminate child support for three adult children, terminate spousal support, and rescind arrears.

The responding party mother cross-moved for retroactive adjustments based on imputed income.

The court terminated child support for the two oldest children as of their 23rd birthdays, as agreed in the separation agreement, and ordered table support for the youngest child until her 23rd birthday.

The court declined to terminate spousal support immediately, ordering it to continue until 13 years from the date of the agreement.

The court declined to impute income to the father and refused to rescind his arrears, finding he had no reasonable excuse for unilaterally reducing support payments without formal variation.

This decision addresses costs following a six-day trial concerning parenting arrangements and child support.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and child support based on an imputed income of $60,000, while the respondent father sought joint custody and child support based on a lower imputed income.

The court granted the mother sole custody, provided the father with more access than the mother initially sought but less than he requested, and imputed an income of $55,000 to the father.

The mother sought full indemnity costs from the date of her comprehensive offer to settle and substantial indemnity costs for the period prior.

The father offered to pay $7,000, citing financial hardship.

The court found the mother achieved a much higher degree of success and that her January 9, 2019 offer to settle was as favourable as, or more favourable than, the trial outcome for the father.

The mother was awarded full costs from the date of her offer, fixed at $26,913.35, payable at $200 per month and enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office, balancing the father's ability to pay with the mother's reasonable conduct and the purpose of encouraging settlement.

Following a six-day trial, the court determined custody, access, and child support for two young children.

The mother sought sole custody and supervised access for the father, while the father sought joint custody and equal parenting time.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding the parents unable to communicate effectively due to the father's abusive behaviour and mental health struggles.

The father was granted access every second weekend, to be exercised under the flexible supervision of his parents or partner.

Additionally, the court found the father intentionally under-employed and imputed an annual income of $55,000 for child support purposes.

The Estate of Lois Jean Davey, administered by Geoffrey Craig, brought an application seeking a declaration of beneficial interest in a property owned by Geoffrey and Isabel Craig (his separated wife) based on a constructive trust, related to an in-law suite built by the deceased.

Isabel Craig sought dismissal under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the application frivolous and vexatious, dismissing it because the deceased's will explicitly stated the addition became Geoffrey's sole property and the estate had no claim.

The court held that the application was an improper attempt to bring a matrimonial claim in a different forum and was estopped by the clear terms of the will.

The respondent moved for interim spousal support.

Entitlement was not in dispute, only the amount.

The respondent sought $7,656.00 per month, arguing for an imputed income of $210,000.00 to the applicant and no income to herself.

The applicant proposed $3,000.00 per month, based on his declared salary of $84,900.00 and an imputed income of $20,000.00 to the respondent.

The court found it inappropriate for interim relief to impute the full retained earnings of the applicant's partially-owned farm business but recognized his real income was higher than his salary.

A modest income of $5,000.00 per year was imputed to the respondent due to her failure to provide evidence of inability to work.

The court ordered temporary spousal support of $3,800.00 per month, taxable to the recipient and deductible by the payor, effective January 1, 2017.

This interim order was made without prejudice to findings at trial.

This endorsement addresses the respondent's request for security for spousal support payments, following the applicant's motion to change.

The respondent sought a collateral mortgage on the applicant's jointly-owned property and additional life insurance, arguing that existing policies would be insufficient by 2026.

The applicant contended that her obligation was limited by the original divorce order, which specified that her support obligation would be a first charge on her estate if employment-based insurance was not in effect, and that a mortgage would adversely affect her sister's interest as a joint tenant.

The court declined to order a collateral mortgage due to the impact on the joint tenant and the pre-existing agreement.

However, it ordered the applicant to designate the respondent as an irrevocable beneficiary of 70% of her declining life insurance policies until age 71, with any shortfall becoming a first charge on her estate.

No costs were awarded.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion to change a spousal support order.

The applicant sought to terminate support or receive credit for overpayments, while the respondent opposed termination.

The court had previously reduced the applicant's support obligation but did not terminate it.

Both parties made offers to settle.

The court found that while the applicant had some success on the substantive motion, the respondent was successful in opposing the termination of support.

The respondent's offer to settle did not meet the requirements for full indemnity costs under Rule 18(4) of the Family Law Rules because it would have necessitated further litigation for the applicant.

Consequently, the respondent was awarded partial indemnity costs.

The applicant brought a Motion to Change seeking to terminate spousal support following her retirement from the federal government.

The respondent, who had sacrificed his career to support the applicant's career and care for their child, argued against termination.

The court found a material change in circumstances upon the applicant reaching age 59.92.

Applying the rule against double recovery from Boston v. Boston, the court determined that an appropriate support order could be achieved without resorting to the unequalized portion of the applicant's pension.

Spousal support was reduced but not terminated, set at $2,086 per month until age 67, and $1,304 per month thereafter.

Cross-motions in a family law proceeding addressed disclosure, management of RESP funds, responsibility for matrimonial home expenses, exclusive possession of the home pending sale, and variation of child and spousal support.

The court ordered several disclosure steps, restricted withdrawals from the children's RESP without consent or court order, and directed procedures for relisting and selling the matrimonial home.

The applicant was permitted to remain in exclusive possession pending sale but was required to assume ongoing home expenses subject to limited cost sharing for major repairs.

The court also found a material change in circumstances and imputed income to the applicant due to underemployment when considering variation of support.

Following a successful motion regarding the children's schooling, child care, and telephone access, the applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity and full indemnity basis.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded or that they should be limited to a partial indemnity basis from the date the amended notice of motion was served.

The court found the applicant was successful and had made an offer to settle that met the requirements of Rule 18(14).

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a substantial indemnity basis from the date the assessor's report was received, fixed at $3,500 plus disbursements and HST.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking to enroll the parties' two children in a public community school, while the respondent father sought to keep the older child in a private Lebanese Catholic school and enroll the younger child there.

The court considered a court-appointed assessor's recommendation that a neutral community school would ease conflict and allow both parents to be equally involved.

Finding the private school tuition financially unrealistic for the parties and noting the long commute, the court granted the mother's motion and ordered the children to be enrolled in a community school.