V. Jennifer Mackinnon

Following a motion in a family law proceeding, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant had been the successful party on the motion.

The court found no unreasonable litigation conduct by either party and declined to award substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed in a lump sum amount payable within 30 days.

Following a motion in a family law proceeding, the respondent sought costs of $7,725 after having been awarded costs subject to determination upon written submissions.

The court considered the parties’ conduct, including the absence of any settlement offer from the party seeking costs and the presence of an offer to settle made by the opposing party.

The court emphasized the importance of offers to settle in family law proceedings as a mechanism to narrow issues and facilitate resolution.

Finding the amount claimed excessive in light of these considerations, the court accepted the opposing party’s submissions and reduced the costs award.

Following separation and a review clause in a separation agreement, the parties disputed the continuation and quantum of spousal support, child support obligations under a shared parenting arrangement, life insurance security for support, and whether post-separation income should be shared.

The court assessed the parties’ respective incomes, imputing income to the respondent due to underemployment.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and the objectives of s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act, the court determined that the respondent remained in need of support but that a time-limited, step‑down order was appropriate.

Child support was recalculated using the set‑off method under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court also ordered life insurance to secure support obligations and declined to require the respondent to share her post‑separation income.

The respondent brought a motion seeking an order requiring the applicant and an added party (the applicant’s mother) to pay into court the net proceeds from the sale of a property alleged to be a former matrimonial home.

The moving party claimed a trust interest and alleged cash contributions toward renovations, asserting unjust enrichment and seeking preservation of funds pending determination of property claims.

The court reviewed the evidentiary record, including financial disclosure and the moving party’s inconsistent affidavits regarding the alleged cash contributions.

The court found the evidence insufficient to establish a prima facie case for unjust enrichment or to justify a mandatory interlocutory injunction requiring payment of funds into court.

While a triable issue remained as to whether the property may have been a matrimonial home, the motion was dismissed, subject to continuing an order restraining depletion of the applicant’s property under s. 12(a) of the Family Law Act.

Following a seven-day family law trial, both parties sought costs.

The court held that the respondent was not entitled to costs because he was unsuccessful at trial.

The applicant argued for near full recovery based on a prior settlement offer that was more favourable than the trial result, but the court found that a later, less generous offer implicitly withdrew the earlier offer.

As a result, the earlier offer did not trigger the cost consequences of rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules, though it remained relevant to assessing costs.

Partial recovery costs at the higher end of the range were awarded due to the respondent’s conduct and the overall circumstances.

The applicant moved for interim child and spousal support, while the respondent moved for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court determined the applicant's income for support purposes based on her actual 2012 earnings rather than annualizing a recent six-month contract.

The court ordered the respondent to pay child support for the older child for 1.5 months of the summer based on actual residency, and apportioned post-secondary expenses.

The respondent's motion to sell the matrimonial home was dismissed due to the applicant's pending constructive trust claim.

The moving party brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the responding party from depleting her RRSP savings and for summary judgment requiring her to return an engagement ring.

The parties had cohabited but never married.

The court found the moving party met the three-part test for an injunction, noting the responding party had previously refinanced her home without disclosure, reducing the moving party's security.

The court also granted summary judgment for the return of the engagement ring, applying section 33 of the Marriage Act, which removes fault from the consideration of recovering gifts made in contemplation of marriage.

The respondent brought a motion to stay or dismiss Ontario family proceedings on the basis that he had already commenced a parallel divorce, custody, and access proceeding in Bulgaria.

The court considered jurisdiction under the Divorce Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act and held that Ontario clearly had jurisdiction because the spouses had been resident in the province and the child was habitually resident in Ontario.

Applying the forum non conveniens principles articulated in Club Resorts Ltd v. Van Breda, the court held that the moving party failed to demonstrate that Bulgaria was a clearly more appropriate forum.

The child’s residence, schooling, medical care, and most relevant evidence relating to the child’s best interests were located in Ontario, and the applicant would face significant juridical disadvantage if forced to litigate abroad.

The motion to stay or dismiss the Ontario proceedings was therefore refused.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal, which upheld the Director's finding that he was not a 'person with a disability' under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Tribunal found the appellant had a substantial impairment but not a substantial restriction in activities of daily living.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Tribunal's weighing of the medical evidence and concluding that the Tribunal's reasons were adequate and reasonable.

A child protection matter where the child suffered severe injuries including liver lacerations and rib fractures of unexplained origin.

The Children’s Aid Society initially commenced a protection application but later sought to withdraw it after concluding the child was not in need of protection.

Investigations indicated the injuries likely occurred within 24 hours prior to hospital admission, but no criminal charges were laid and concerns arose regarding the child’s daycare provider.

The Society reported positive observations of the parents’ caregiving and entered into a three‑month Voluntary Service Agreement permitting supervision and services.

The court found the decision to withdraw the protection application reasonable and accepted the withdrawal.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final order to seek table child support for summer months and contribution to the child's university expenses.

She also sought equal division of the proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned home.

The respondent father argued he was the sole owner of the home based on a 2002 unwitnessed 'Divorce Agreement' and his mortgage payments.

The court found the agreement unenforceable under s. 55(1) of the Family Law Act and held the property was jointly owned.

The court ordered the net proceeds divided equally after crediting the father for lump sum mortgage payments.

The father was also ordered to pay summer table support and his proportionate share of the child's university expenses.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss portions of a civil action alleging damages arising from the disclosure of confidential taxpayer information by a government employee to police during an arson investigation.

The estate of the deceased plaintiff alleged reputational harm, loss of property, and Charter breaches.

The court held that the cause of action relating to damage to property arose before the deceased’s discharge from bankruptcy and therefore vested in the bankruptcy trustee under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

As a result, the estate lacked legal capacity to pursue claims relating to property loss.

The court dismissed those claims but allowed the personal claim for damage to reputation to proceed to trial, while striking Charter breach allegations that could not survive the claimant’s death.

Following a two-day trial concerning child support in a shared parenting arrangement, the respondent sought full recovery costs of over $32,000.

The trial result imputed modest additional income to the respondent and resulted in minimal net support adjustments.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and that the applicant had advanced serious allegations without supporting evidence and had engaged in litigation misconduct by strategically listing public officials as witnesses to pressure settlement.

However, the respondent had also failed to fully comply with disclosure obligations and attempted to tender previously undisclosed documents at trial.

Treating the parties’ litigation conduct as offsetting factors, the court awarded partial recovery costs to the successful party.

A spouse without legal title sought an interlocutory injunction restraining mortgagees from exercising power of sale over Muskoka properties alleged to constitute a matrimonial home.

The mortgagees relied on a statutory declaration by the titled spouse asserting that another property had been designated as the matrimonial home under s. 21(3)(d) of the Family Law Act.

The court found strong evidence capable of belief that the lender had actual or constructive notice that the property was used as a family cottage and therefore a matrimonial home.

The presumption in s. 21(3)(d) could not protect a lender who knew facts inconsistent with the declaration.

Applying the three-part injunctive test, the court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to the spouse, and a balance of convenience favouring preservation of the property pending trial.

Following two family law motions in which the applicant was largely successful, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs of $20,000 while the respondent argued for partial indemnity of approximately $11,540.

The court considered the respondent’s partial success on a custody issue, some overlap in legal work by junior counsel and a law student, and the respondent’s litigation conduct including failure to comply with prior orders and misleading conduct regarding the calculation of matrimonial home sale proceeds.

After applying reductions but emphasizing the applicant’s overall success and the respondent’s conduct, the court fixed costs on an all-inclusive basis.

The moving party sought orders relating to jurisdiction, setting aside a prior order, and directing child protection agencies and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to investigate issues concerning the custody of a minor child.

The court determined that Ontario had jurisdiction over the child because Ontario was the child’s place of ordinary residence when the enforcement process for an existing custody order commenced.

A prior order permitting the child’s registration in school in another province was set aside because it had been made without notice and without a motion before the court.

The court requested investigative reports from two child protection agencies regarding the child’s care and best interests before determining whether further involvement from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer was necessary.

On a family law motion concerning spousal support, the responding party sought termination of support while the moving party’s income had substantially increased.

The court declined to terminate support on the motion, holding that termination should be determined at trial on a full evidentiary record.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and considering the parties’ incomes, needs, means, and custodial arrangements for the children, the court adjusted the quantum of spousal support beginning January 2010.

The court ordered stepped amounts reflecting the parties’ financial circumstances and prior reductions, and directed counsel to calculate any resulting overpayment.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act seeking a sealing order and anonymization of the parties and their children in a family law proceeding.

The motion was based on evidence that the children were emotionally vulnerable due to their parents’ separation and other recent traumatic events, and that the family’s prominence could attract media attention and expose the children to bullying or psychological harm.

Applying the Dagenais–Mentuck framework and authorities on open courts and confidentiality orders, the court found a serious risk of harm to a public interest—namely the protection of vulnerable children.

However, the court held that sealing the entire file was unnecessary.

Instead, it ordered that the parties and children be identified by initials and that only the portions of the file dealing with the marriage contract challenge, exclusive possession of the cottage, and custody and access be sealed.

The respondent brought a motion to change seeking custody of a teenage child, variation of child support, termination of spousal support, and related relief.

The court granted custody of the child to the father because the child had resided with him for an extended period and custodial authority should reflect the existing residential arrangement.

The court refused to appoint the Office of the Children’s Lawyer regarding the two younger children due to extensive prior assessments and the father’s failure to comply with counselling and parenting program requirements intended to address parental alienation concerns.

Child support was varied using a set-off approach reflecting that one child lived with the father and two with the mother, based on updated income figures.

Summary judgment was also granted to the mother for unpaid proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

Following a bifurcated family law trial concerning custody, residency, and child support, the trial judge issued a decision changing the child’s primary residence from the father to the mother.

After the trial judge passed away before addressing costs, another judge was assigned to determine costs based on written submissions.

The successful parent sought substantial indemnity costs relying in part on an offer to settle that matched the trial outcome on the residential issue.

The court found that the offer justified substantial recovery costs for the portion of the litigation concerning the residence issue after the offer was served, while the remaining amounts were assessed on a partial recovery basis.

Costs were fixed at $28,983.38, including an amount attributable to support issues enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.