J. Leigh Daboll

The applicant father brought a motion to have the respondent mother found in contempt of a June 19, 2017 order requiring the children to be enrolled in counselling.

The court found the mother in contempt, determining that she willfully obstructed the commencement of counselling, despite the clear terms of the order and previous judicial directions.

The mother's actions were found to have contributed to protracted litigation and the children's emotional distress.

The applicant sought sole custody of the parties' four children and child support, while the respondent sought joint custody and shared residence.

The respondent had been unemployed, lost his driver's licence due to a drinking and driving conviction, and lacked suitable housing.

The court awarded sole custody to the applicant with access at her discretion.

The court also imputed an annual income of $40,000 to the respondent for ongoing child support and ordered the respondent's share of the matrimonial home proceeds to be applied to retroactive child support and costs.

The respondent moved to dismiss the applicant's application for a constructive trust over a shared property, arguing the Superior Court of Justice, Family Court lacked jurisdiction.

The court found the application was properly brought in the Superior Court of Justice and that the Family Law Rules applied because the parties' arrangement was made in anticipation of cohabitation.

The respondent's motion was dismissed, his separate civil proceeding was permanently stayed, and he was enjoined from entering the property.

This costs endorsement followed a motion for security for costs where the defendants were partially successful, obtaining an order for $18,000 in security despite requesting $55,000.

The court determined that the defendants, as the successful parties on the underlying motion, were entitled to costs, though less than complete partial indemnity due to their partial success.

Costs were fixed at $6,000 all-inclusive, payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants within 30 days.

The defendants moved for security for costs against the corporate plaintiffs under Rule 56.01(1)(d), alleging insufficient assets in Ontario.

The plaintiffs claimed impecuniosity caused by the defendants' conduct and a meritorious claim.

The court found the defendants met the initial onus regarding insufficient assets.

However, the plaintiffs failed to provide robust financial disclosure, including that of their shareholders, to prove impecuniosity.

The court also found the plaintiffs' impecuniosity was not caused by the defendants' conduct and that their claim, while not devoid of merit, did not meet the higher standard of having a good chance of success.

Consequently, the motion for security for costs was granted, ordering the plaintiffs to pay $20,340 into court.

The parties separated after a 13-year cohabitation and 11-year marriage.

The applicant sought to resolve issues of spousal support, child support, and the timing of an agreed $90,000 equalization payment.

The court imputed income to both parties, finding the respondent was underemployed and the applicant had unexplained expenses exceeding his declared income.

The court dismissed the respondent's claim for ongoing spousal support, finding her entitlement was satisfied by previous payments from the family business.

The applicant was ordered to pay ongoing child support and retroactive arrears, with the equalization payment delayed until company mortgages become due or within three years.