Joan Cushon

In an uncontested family law trial following the striking of the respondent's pleadings, the court addressed claims for support, equalization, unjust enrichment, and the tort of intrusion upon seclusion.

The added parties (the applicant's parents) were awarded a constructive trust and resulting trust over the farm property and matrimonial home due to their financial contributions.

The court imputed income to the respondent due to non-disclosure and ordered retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support at the high end of the SSAG.

The court also found the respondent liable for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion for his malicious campaign of disseminating private family court information, awarding $75,000 in general, aggravated, and punitive damages.

A restraining order and a sealing order were granted to protect the applicant's privacy.

Motion by the appellant for an extension of time to perfect an appeal from an order refusing to set aside the striking of the appellant's pleadings in family law proceedings.

The motion was dismissed as contrary to the interests of justice.

The moving party had a long-standing pattern of non-compliance with court orders, including failure to provide financial disclosure and failure to pay substantial costs orders.

The appeal lacked merit as the motion judge's findings were entitled to deference and the appellant's admitted failure to pay costs orders alone was fatal to the appeal.

Substantial indemnity costs awarded to the responding parties.

This is a costs endorsement following a lengthy family law hearing.

The Applicant (E.L.R.) and Added Parties (E.W.C., E.C.M.) sought costs from the Respondent (D.M.S.).

The court found the Respondent wholly unsuccessful in the underlying focused hearing and largely responsible for its disproportionate length due to unreasonable litigation conduct, including disorganized materials, evasive testimony, and the late withdrawal of a major claim.

While the Respondent's conduct was unreasonable, it did not meet the high threshold for bad faith.

The court awarded the Applicant $200,000 and the Added Parties $175,000 in costs, reflecting their success and the Respondent's conduct, while also considering proportionality and the necessity of co-counsel for the Added Parties.

In a highly acrimonious family law dispute, the court held a focused hearing to address the respondent father's claim to set aside several temporary separation agreements and arbitration awards, and the applicant mother's motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for failure to provide court-ordered disclosure.

The court dismissed the respondent's claims, finding no evidence of duress, unconscionability, or unfairness in the negotiation of the agreements or the arbitration process.

Conversely, the court granted the applicant's motion to strike the respondent's pleadings, finding that he willfully breached multiple disclosure orders and engaged in egregious litigation conduct, including dissipating assets to render himself judgment-proof.

The respondent was granted 60 days to fully comply with the disclosure orders before the matter could proceed as an uncontested trial.

The Mother brought a motion to compel the Father to undergo a psychiatric risk assessment as recommended by the court-appointed assessor.

The Father cross-moved to adjourn the motion pending disclosure and to appoint a different assessor for both parties.

The court found the assessor had the authority to direct the risk assessment but agreed with the Father's objection to the specific psychiatrist due to a potential conflict of interest.

The court also ordered both parties to complete disclosure before the assessment continued.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking a s. 30 assessment, restricted and supervised parenting time for the respondent father, and a restraining order.

The respondent father, who has bipolar disorder, brought a cross-motion seeking equal parenting time and no supervision.

The court dismissed the request for a s. 30 assessment, finding it unnecessary and not in the child's best interests.

The court ordered an incremental increase in the respondent's parenting time and a gradual decrease in supervision, utilizing the paternal grandmother for supervision and handovers.

The request for a restraining order was dismissed, but an expanded no-contact order was implemented.

Cross-motions in a family law matter concerning parenting time and therapeutic reunification.

The mother sought to suspend an existing access order pending a future motion date, while the father sought an order appointing a specific professional to conduct reintegration or reunification therapy between him and the children.

The court declined to suspend the existing access order and emphasized the urgency of commencing reintegration therapy.

Given the parties’ lack of mutual trust in the proposed experts, the court directed the two proposed professionals to consult and jointly recommend a neutral third professional to undertake the therapy.

The matter was scheduled to return before the court for an update on the selected professional.

Cross-motions in a family law matter concerning parenting time and therapeutic reunification.

The mother sought to suspend an existing access order pending a future motion date, while the father sought an order appointing a specific professional to conduct reintegration or reunification therapy between him and the children.

The court declined to suspend the existing access order and emphasized the urgency of commencing reintegration therapy.

Given the parties’ lack of mutual trust in the proposed experts, the court directed the two proposed professionals to consult and jointly recommend a neutral third professional to undertake the therapy.

The matter was scheduled to return before the court for an update on the selected professional.

Costs decision following a family law motion previously decided by the court.

The parties reached an agreement regarding costs after the motion ruling was released.

The court endorsed the agreement, ordering the respondent to pay $2,500 in costs to the applicant, inclusive, to be satisfied by way of set‑off against future spousal support.

The court also clarified the total amount to be redirected by the Family Responsibility Office in accordance with the earlier endorsement.