Jennifer E. Jolly

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion on a reference for sole signing authority to complete the court-ordered sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home, after the applicant failed to sign necessary closing documents and was unresponsive to the real estate agent and transaction lawyer.

The court granted sole signing authority to the moving party, directed distribution of net sale proceeds in accordance with a prior judicial order allocating 80% to the respondent and 20% to the applicant (less the applicant's share of mortgage payments and insurance premiums paid by the respondent since separation), and awarded costs of $5,610.45 on a substantial indemnity basis against the applicant for unreasonable conduct.

This endorsement concerns a costs award following a trial where S.B. was the entirely successful party.

S.B. sought full indemnity costs of $157,681.47, citing G.S.'s bad faith conduct, failure to follow court orders, and causing significant delays and unnecessary litigation steps.

The court found G.S.'s conduct unreasonable and in bad faith, noting the waste of court time.

After accounting for some overlaps with previously ordered costs and a trial adjournment not attributable to G.S., the court found the requested fees reasonable and ordered G.S. to pay S.B. $146,000 in costs.

The court reviewed interim custody and access arrangements for the child, C.B., following the failure of an American psychologist to complete a court-ordered assessment and the subsequent adjournment of the trial.

The court ordered the child's return to Ottawa for school in January 2019, with revised parenting time arrangements, acknowledging the applicant's travel limitations and the respondent's unwillingness to cross the border.

The trial was adjourned to May 2019 as a priority matter.

This motion concerned temporary parenting arrangements for a child, C.B., pending trial, specifically whether she should be returned to Ottawa from St. Louis, Missouri.

The respondent father sought the child's immediate return and re-establishment of his parenting time, which had been disrupted by withdrawn criminal charges against him.

The applicant mother sought to keep the child in St. Louis, proposing significant access for the father.

The court found a change in circumstances due to the withdrawn charges and the mother's inability to travel due to pregnancy.

While acknowledging concerns about potential parental alienation, the court decided against abruptly removing the child from the mother's care given the approaching trial and the need for a clinical assessment.

The child was permitted to remain in St. Louis temporarily, with a detailed schedule for the father's parenting time, including monthly visits in Ottawa and additional holiday time, with travel costs borne by the applicant.

The court also ordered an expedited update to the OCL report and a s. 30 assessment by a psychologist, with the applicant's proposed psychologist conditionally accepted.

Following a 12-day family law trial regarding custody, access, and support, the parties could not agree on costs.

The mother sought costs of over $130,000, arguing she was the successful party and had made reasonable offers to settle.

The self-represented father argued for each party to bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found the mother was the more successful party and that her offers to settle were reasonable and better than the trial outcome on several key issues.

The court also noted the father's lack of preparation unnecessarily extended the trial.

The court fixed costs at $60,000 payable by the father to the mother.

The father brought a motion to change seeking joint custody, equal parenting time with the youngest child, and variations to child and spousal support.

The mother sought sole custody, imputation of income to the father, and retroactive child support and section 7 expenses.

The court granted the mother sole custody of all children, finding the parents' high-conflict relationship precluded joint custody.

The court imputed an annual income of $60,000 to the father due to intentional underemployment and ordered him to pay table child support and his proportionate share of section 7 expenses.

The court also varied spousal support payable by the mother to the father based on a material change in circumstances and nullified an unauthorized transfer of the father's corporate shares.