Jodi Rebecca Fleishman

The applicant sought costs of $22,689.79 on a partial indemnity basis following a successful motion where primary residence and decision-making authority were transferred to him.

The respondent argued against a costs award, citing her financial circumstances and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful and that the respondent's litigation conduct was unreasonable.

The court awarded the applicant $19,500 in costs, including costs for the urgency determination and case conferences pursuant to Rules 17(18.1) and 24(11) of the Family Law Rules.

However, payment was stayed until the respondent obtains employment or her financial claims are determined.

The court conducted a six-week review of a temporary parenting order regarding the child, who had been placed in his father's care.

The mother sought to initialize the style of cause retroactively and prospectively to protect her employment prospects given the disclosure of her psychiatric history.

The court granted the prospective request to protect her medical privacy but denied the retroactive request.

The court found that the child was doing well in the father's care and that his relationship with his father had improved.

The court struck inadmissible portions of the mother's affidavits that fell outside the scope of the review.

The mother's parenting time was incrementally increased, and the court ordered continued counselling for the child and father-son counselling, with a further review scheduled.

The applicant father sought a temporary order for primary residential care or an equally shared residential schedule for his nine-year-old son, alleging parental alienation by the respondent mother.

The mother opposed, asserting the child should continue to reside with her due to the child's wishes and fear of the father.

The court found the mother exerted significant influence over the child, supported his negative attitude towards the father, and minimized her own mental health issues.

The court dismissed the mother's allegations of abuse against the father and concluded that it was in the child's best interests to reside with the father temporarily, subject to specific terms for transition, counselling, and limited initial contact with the mother.

The applicant father sought sole custody and permission to move the parties' three-year-old son to Spain.

At trial, he conceded primary residence to the respondent mother but sought joint decision-making and unsupervised access.

The court dismissed the father's claims for joint custody, finding he had made false, salacious allegations against the mother and posed a flight risk.

The mother was granted sole custody and primary residence in Ottawa.

The father was granted supervised access in Ottawa and ordered to pay child support based on an imputed income of $48,000.

A restraining order was also issued against the father.

The applicant father sought to terminate child support for his eldest daughter and vary support for his youngest, along with other relief.

The respondent mother opposed and sought continued support, arrears, and costs.

The court found the mother substantially successful on all issues, including continued full table child support for both children, accelerated arrears repayment, and costs for a previously withdrawn motion.

The father's position was deemed unreasonable, and he rejected two reasonable settlement offers from the mother.

The court awarded the mother $22,500 in costs, noting the father's unreasonable conduct and the lack of detailed billing records from the mother's counsel.

The applicant father brought a motion to change seeking to terminate child support for his adult daughter, who has severe developmental disabilities, and to terminate his contribution to section 7 expenses.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing the daughter remained a child of the marriage and that table support was appropriate despite her receipt of ODSP benefits.

The court found the daughter was a child of the marriage and, after conducting a means and needs analysis, concluded the presumptive table amount was appropriate.

The court dismissed the father's requests to terminate section 7 expenses and to vary access, increased his monthly arrears repayment rate, and ordered him to pay costs for a previously withdrawn motion.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs following two motions where the respondent's motion for security for costs was dismissed, and the applicant was granted supervised access.

The respondent argued for reserving costs to the trial judge or sought her own costs.

The court, applying Family Law Rules, found the applicant to be the more successful party and rejected deferring the costs decision.

Considering the importance of the security for costs issue and the parties' reasonable behaviour, the court awarded the applicant $9,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable upon the trial judge's decision on trial costs.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking $100,000 in security for costs against the applicant father, who resides in Spain and is seeking sole or joint custody of their child.

The father brought a cross-motion for unsupervised access.

The court dismissed the motion for security for costs, finding that while the father resides outside Ontario, his custody claim has merit and is not a nuisance.

The court also denied the father's request for unsupervised access due to outstanding criminal charges and flight risk concerns, instead ordering supervised access.

Following a successful appeal that reinstated spousal support payments, the appellant sought costs of the appeal and the original motion on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found no bad faith conduct by the respondent but awarded substantial indemnity costs from the date of the appellant's more favourable offer to settle.

Noting that the claimed costs of over $116,000 were disproportionate and lacked detailed dockets, the court reduced the fees to account for duplication of effort.

Costs were fixed at $85,727.14 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant appealed an order reducing and ultimately terminating her spousal support.

The respondent, a former police officer, had voluntarily retired at age 51 and successfully argued at first instance that this constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error in concluding the parties had agreed to an early retirement date during their initial settlement.

The Court held that voluntary early retirement by a payor who retains the capacity to earn income does not constitute a material change in circumstances.

The Court also found errors in the motion judge's application of the rule against double-dipping and the imposition of a termination date on support for a disabled spouse.

The original spousal support order was reinstated.

The court determined the appropriate costs following an earlier endorsement where the father effectively abandoned a motion to vary in family proceedings.

The mother sought recovery of substantial legal expenses incurred responding to the abandoned motion and in bringing her own motion.

Applying the general principles of costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court emphasized that costs typically follow the event and may serve to indemnify successful litigants and discourage inappropriate litigation conduct.

The court found the mother was entitled to costs arising from the abandoned motion and was also more successful on her own motion.

Costs were fixed at $7,500 for the abandoned motion and $3,000 for the mother’s motion.

The applicant brought a motion to change a final order for spousal support following his retirement from the Ontario Provincial Police.

The court found that the applicant's retirement constituted a material change in circumstances that was not foreseen in the original order.

Applying the rule against double dipping, the court limited the applicant's income for support purposes to the non-equalized portion of his pension.

The court also imputed income to the respondent based on her ability to generate income from equalized assets.

Spousal support was reduced to $1,050 per month and a fixed termination date was set for October 31, 2021.

The grievor, a probationary employee, was released from her employment pursuant to s. 22(5) of the Public Service Act.

She filed a grievance alleging wrongful dismissal.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the grievance because the grievor was released during her first year of employment.

The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the grievance of a probationary employee released under s. 22(5) of the Act, as such employees are excluded by s. 42(1) of Regulation 881.

The grievance was dismissed.