Jocelyne Paquette-Landry

Following a motion where the moving party successfully had the responding party's pleadings regarding child and spousal support struck, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party sought $3,239.09 in costs, while the responding party made no submissions.

The court found the moving party was entitled to costs as the successful party and because the motion was necessitated by the responding party's disregard for court directives.

Costs were fixed at $2,500.

Following a one‑day family trial, the applicant sought a divorce and equalization of net family property after a long marriage.

The respondent, self‑represented, did not file a net family property statement but alleged that the applicant had stolen approximately $500,000 during the marriage and had sold a beehive business and equipment for an unreasonably low value.

The court found no evidence supporting the allegation of theft and declined to speculate regarding decades‑old financial transactions.

The court also accepted the applicant’s valuation and sale price of the beehive business based on evidence that the enterprise had been declining and the equipment was largely dilapidated.

An equalization payment of $23,134.04 was ordered and a divorce was granted subject to filing the required documentation.

Following competing applications under the Substitute Decisions Act to appoint guardians for an adult daughter with significant developmental limitations, the successful applicant sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $34,000.

The court considered the discretionary principles governing costs under the Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure, including settlement offers and litigation conduct.

Although the applicant had succeeded in the guardianship proceeding, the court found his longstanding failure to provide child support for the daughter constituted relevant conduct justifying denial of costs.

The court declined to rely on the applicant’s settlement offer and also refused to order costs against non-parties.

In the circumstances, the court ordered that there be no order as to costs.

Following a family law motion concerning parenting time, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The respondent had successfully obtained an interim order providing for equal parenting time on an alternating weekly basis.

The applicant argued that no costs should be ordered due to limited financial means and alleged delay by the respondent, and attributed earlier nondisclosure during an uncontested trial to her former counsel.

The court held that a successful party is presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 24 and that limited financial means alone does not negate entitlement.

Finding no basis for full indemnity costs but accepting the reasonableness of the hours and rates claimed, the court fixed partial indemnity costs payable in instalments.

A child protection proceeding concerning a temporary care and custody order under s. 51 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The child had been apprehended following concerns about exposure to ongoing high-conflict family dynamics, violence between adults, and allegations of sexual misconduct within the family.

Multiple relatives sought custody or supervision arrangements, while the children's aid society sought continued custody with discretionary access.

The court found credible evidence establishing reasonable grounds to believe the child would likely suffer emotional harm if returned to the prior family environment.

Concluding that supervision conditions would not adequately protect the child given the intensity of conflict and credibility concerns, the court ordered that temporary care and custody remain with the society.

Cross-applications were brought by separated parents under the Substitute Decisions Act seeking appointment as guardian of the property and personal care of their adult daughter who had a moderate developmental disability and epilepsy and was incapable of managing property or personal care.

The court reviewed expert psychological evidence, service-provider testimony, and the daughter’s declining life skills and limited participation in developmental programs while living primarily with the mother.

Applying the statutory criteria for guardianship, the court concluded the father was better positioned to provide stimulation, structure, and access to support services necessary to maintain or improve the incapable person’s functioning.

The court therefore appointed the father as sole guardian of property and personal care, with detailed conditions governing finances, services, residence, and the mother’s ongoing contact.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking an interim order for equal parenting time with the parties’ two children on a week-about basis.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and limited access, alleging communication issues, lateness, and parenting concerns.

The court found that both parents contributed to communication conflict and that many of the alleged concerns were minor and did not justify restricting the father's parenting time.

Given the historical arrangement of alternating weeks and the absence of evidence that equal parenting was harmful, the court held that maintaining a shared parenting schedule was in the children's best interests.

The court ordered an interim week-about parenting arrangement and directed the parties to participate in a parenting course and engage a parenting coordinator.

A dispute between parents concerning guardianship of their adult daughter who was incapable of managing her property and personal care under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The court confirmed the daughter’s continued incapacity and terminated the parents’ joint guardianship due to ongoing conflict.

The Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed as full guardian of property and temporary guardian of the person.

The court imposed detailed interim residence and communication arrangements between the parents and emphasized the urgent need for placement in an appropriate group home for adults with developmental disabilities in Eastern Ontario.