Jessica Brant

On a family law motion, the moving party sought interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home pending trial under ss. 19 and 24 of the Family Law Act.

The court reviewed the statutory factors, including the children’s best interests, existing orders, financial circumstances, availability of alternative accommodation, and allegations of violence.

The evidentiary record was materially conflicting, lacked corroboration on key allegations, and did not permit credibility findings on the paper record.

The court found no sufficient basis to conclude that continued shared occupation posed an adverse impact warranting interim exclusive possession.

The motion was dismissed and partial indemnity costs were awarded to the non-moving party.

The trial addressed equalization of net family property, retroactive spousal and child support, and Section 7 expenses following a 2014 separation.

The court imputed significant income to the respondent based on substantial, regular, untracked gifts from his mother, which were intended to replace his employment income.

Conversely, the court declined to impute income to the applicant from time-limited, tracked loans from her father that were repaid.

The respondent's claims for retroactive support and matrimonial home carrying costs were dismissed.

Equalization calculations were adjusted, rejecting a large alleged business loan from the respondent's mother but excluding Facebook shares as a gift.

Past Section 7 expenses were largely dismissed as a wash, but future post-secondary education costs were ordered to be split equally.

The father brought a motion to hold the mother in contempt of a parenting order after he was criminally charged and his bail conditions prevented him from communicating with her.

The motion was resolved when the father's bail conditions were varied to allow for child exchanges.

The court found that the father brought the contempt motion prematurely, as the mother was cooperative in facilitating the bail variation.

The court awarded costs of $5,000 to the mother.

In a child protection proceeding, the child protection issues were resolved on a final basis with the children remaining in the primary care of the father and a prohibition of contact between the children and the mother's spouse.

The father sought costs against the mother for delay and unreasonable conduct.

The court found that the mother's conduct in pursuing contact between the children and her spouse, who had a violent criminal history, was unreasonable and not in the children's best interests.

The court awarded costs of $7,800 to the father.

The applicants brought a non-party production motion in a multi-party Children’s Law Reform Act application concerning the future care of three Indigenous children.

The motion sought records from Probation and Parole Services, the Ontario Provincial Police, and Payukotayno-James and Hudson’s Bay Family Services regarding the respondent parents and the children's older siblings.

The court granted the production order, finding the records relevant to determining the children's best interests and understanding the family's history, including constitutional questions related to Indigenous inherent rights.

The court balanced privacy interests against the need for full disclosure, noting the parents' non-engagement and the existing sealing order.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to dispense with the respondent's consent to adoption.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs due to the respondent's delays, while the respondent sought costs as the successful party in the underlying motion.

The court, applying the Family Law Rules and jurisprudence, found that despite the respondent's success, his unreasonable behaviour caused unnecessary delays and costs for the applicant.

Consequently, the court ordered no costs to either party.

The applicant stepfather sought an order to dispense with the biological father's consent for the adoption of the child, C.S.L.K., pursuant to the Child and Family Services Act.

The biological mother and child consented to the adoption, but the biological father objected, wishing to be part of his son's life.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the mother had actively attempted to exclude the father from the child's life and that it was in the child's best interests to be afforded the opportunity to know his biological father and paternal family, as the adoption would irrevocably sever these ties without evidence that the child's current stable environment would be disrupted otherwise.