V. Jennifer Mackinnon

The applicant sought primary residence and shared decision-making with final authority, and child support.

The respondent sought shared decision-making, equal residential parenting time, and temporary spousal support.

The court granted the applicant primary residence and shared decision-making with final authority, citing the respondent's surveillance activities and threats as reasons for a serious lack of trust and finding his conduct not in the children's best interests.

The respondent's request for equal residential parenting and temporary spousal support was dismissed, with the court finding no serious triable issue to set aside the marriage contract's spousal support waiver under the Miglin test.

Interim child support was ordered, and the issue of section 7 expenses and final child support was deferred.

The applicant father sought child support below Guidelines due to undue hardship, access to information, a declaration of parentage, a name change for the children, and a restriction on the respondent mother relocating the children.

The respondent mother sought child support and retroactive child support.

The court granted the declaration of parentage and access to information.

It found the father met the undue hardship test due to unusually high access costs, reducing his child support obligation.

The request for a name change was deferred to trial due to premature relationship development and factual disputes.

The relocation restriction was addressed by undertakings from the mother to provide notice and consent to continued jurisdiction.

The issue of retroactive child support was also deferred to trial.

The applicant sought costs fixed at $4,500 for a motion heard on October 22, 2018, where the respondent was the moving party and was substantially unsuccessful.

The court found the applicant was the successful party on the underlying motion and was entitled to costs.

The respondent's arguments for deferring the costs decision, including an alleged apprehension of bias, the assignment of a case management judge, and an attempt to re-argue the motion, were rejected.

Applying the Family Law Rules and appellate guidance on proportionality and reasonableness, the court fixed the applicant's costs at $3,470, at the upper end of the partial recovery range, considering the respondent's errors in the underlying motion.

The applicant sought to change a final order regarding child and spousal support due to changes in children's residential arrangements.

The respondent denied one child was a child of the marriage and sought to increase spousal support.

The court found a material change in circumstances for child support, terminated the applicant's child support obligation, and ordered the respondent to pay child support for certain periods.

The court also ordered reimbursement of overpaid child support by the applicant.

The spousal support entitlement was found to be both needs-based and compensatory, with specific calculations deferred.

The respondent, David Blair Watts, brought a motion seeking extensive disclosure and procedural relief from the applicant, Karen Enid Elaine Martin, in a family law proceeding.

The motion primarily sought bank statements, credit card records, and proof of certain financial transactions, alleging a "money laundering scheme" and misrepresentation of matrimonial home value.

Watts also requested an order for interim disbursements.

The court largely dismissed Watts's motion, finding many disclosure requests unsubstantiated, factually misguided, or relating to records equally available to him.

The court ordered the applicant to produce specific proof for one sum and a cheque copy if not already provided.

The request for interim disbursements was denied due to Watts's financial capacity, prior unsuccessful motions, and the applicant's compliance with disclosure obligations.

Leave was granted for amended pleadings.

This endorsement addresses costs following a 35-day trial concerning parenting and financial issues.

The applicant sought substantial costs for a contempt motion and financial issues, while the respondent also claimed costs.

The court awarded the applicant $45,000 in full recovery costs for the contempt motion and $10,000 in partial recovery costs for financial issues, both payable by the respondent.

However, no costs were awarded to either party for the parenting issues due to both parties' limited success and unreasonable litigation conduct.

The court also ordered a reapportionment of supervised access fees, to be paid proportionately to income, finding both parents contributed to its necessity.

This case concerns a child protection matter focusing on access between a child, B., and her mother, S.D., following a summary judgment finding B. in need of protection and awarding joint custody to the father and maternal grandmother.

The trial addressed the extent and conditions of the mother's access, including supervision and location.

The court considered the mother's personality disorder, her inability to regulate emotions, and her "victim's stance," as well as her cannabis use and history of conflict.

The court ultimately increased the mother's access duration from the status quo but denied overnight visits and a rotating three-week schedule, allowing home visits only after CAS inspection.

The decision emphasized the child's best interests, the need to reduce conflict, and the mother's lack of insight into her issues.

The Father brought a motion for unsupervised access to his two daughters, whose access had been supervised since June 2014.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) proposed a discretionary, staged progression, while the Father sought a more rapid, automatic transition to unsupervised visits.

The court noted the Father's recent move, the lack of oversight in his proposal, and past issues with negative communication about the Mother and uncooperative behaviour with CAS staff.

The court adopted a structured, 10-week access progression plan proposed by the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL), with specific conditions for missed visits and ongoing oversight.

The court also provided suggestions for subsequent access stages, contingent on CAS approval of the Father's new residence and cohabitant.

This endorsement addresses the costs for a motion to change, where the respondent, Donna Walts, was deemed the successful party.

The court found her offer to settle was substantially similar to the final court order.

While the applicant, Ronald Walts, was not found unreasonable in bringing the motion, the respondent was awarded partial recovery costs to the date of the order and full costs thereafter, fixed at $13,250.00, all inclusive.

A 4-year-old child, B., was apprehended and placed with her maternal grandmother under a temporary supervision order.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) initially sought a supervision order to the grandmother but later amended its application to seek a 6-month supervision order to the father.

The CAS and father then moved for a temporary placement with the father, while the mother sought placement with her.

The court dismissed the mother's request and, after reserving on the father's request, ordered that the child remain with the maternal grandmother under the temporary supervision order, pending final determination of the amended application.

The decision emphasized the importance of continuity of care and the high threshold ("require") for changing a child's placement before a final determination, and highlighted the need for adherence to statutory timelines in child protection cases.

The applicant brought a motion to strike evidence from the respondent's affidavit, alleging mediation/settlement privilege and non-compliance with the Family Law Rules.

The evidence related to an alleged separation agreement concerning spousal support waiver and share division.

The court ruled that the existence and enforceability of such an agreement are trial issues, not to be determined on interim motions for spousal support or disclosure.

The respondent was ordered to remove privileged and non-compliant materials and to confine his evidence for the substantive motions to whether the applicant has established a prima facie case that no enforceable agreement exists.

The applicant, Mr. Walts, brought a motion to change spousal support, seeking a reduction in payments.

He argued that a material change in circumstances had occurred because the respondent, Ms. Walts, had reached age 55 and could now access her Locked-in Retirement Savings Plan (LRSP), and because his own income had decreased due to voluntary retirement and subsequent part-time employment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Mr. Walts had not established a material change in circumstances.

The court imputed his pre-retirement income and determined it was not objectively reasonable to require Ms. Walts to draw on her LRSP at that time, considering her disability, future needs, and market fluctuations affecting her retirement assets.

A review date for spousal support was set for when Mr. Walts reaches age 65.

The applicant father sought the return of the children to Seattle, Washington, under the Hague Convention, alleging wrongful removal or retention in Ottawa, Ontario, after he was denied entry to Canada due to a criminal record.

The respondent mother argued that the children's relocation to Ottawa was mutually agreed upon and their habitual residence had changed.

The court found that the parents had a joint settled intention to move the children to Ottawa, and the father's consent was not vitiated by deceit or misrepresentation.

The application for the return of the children was dismissed.

The applicant sought divorce, custody, child support, and an order for the respondent to sell jointly owned property in Quebec to satisfy child support arrears.

The court dismissed the divorce claim due to lack of jurisdiction, as neither spouse met the one-year residency requirement under the Divorce Act.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant and ordered the respondent to make a lump sum child support payment equal to the respondent's share of the equity in the Quebec property.

However, the court declined to make an in personam order compelling the respondent to sell the Quebec property, finding it could not supervise the execution of such an order in a foreign jurisdiction, despite having in personam jurisdiction over the respondent for child support.

Costs were awarded to the applicant, reflecting mixed success.

The Applicant sought $1,010 in costs as the successful party to a motion brought by the Respondent.

The Respondent argued against a costs order due to his inability to pay and the Applicant's representation by a staff lawyer at ILSO.

The court considered the Respondent's delay in complying with a previous order to collapse his RRSP and apply proceeds to an outstanding costs award.

Despite the Applicant's claim for costs based on counsel's time, the court awarded partial costs, fixing them at $600, to be added to existing outstanding costs.

The Respondent was also prohibited from bringing a motion to change until all costs are paid in full.