Joel J.W.G. Szaefer

Costs decision following the dismissal of a family law application and urgent motion regarding a child.

The self-represented applicant had commenced proceedings in Woodstock despite the child's habitual residence being in Sarnia, where a Superior Court proceeding was already scheduled.

The respondent's offer to settle — proposing withdrawal of the motion on a without-costs basis — met the technical requirements of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the applicant's conduct unreasonable, including failing to file a reply affidavit, proceeding despite jurisdictional deficiencies, and failing to attend court.

Despite the applicant's limited financial means, the court awarded $4,500 in costs payable in monthly instalments, rather than the full indemnity of $7,242.17 sought.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Matthew James Avery from an uncontested trial order requiring him to pay child support, s. 7 expenses, and granting a vesting order for sole title to the matrimonial home to Angela Nadine Wade.

The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify hearing the appeal, no error in the trial judge’s exercise of discretion, and that the appellant had adequate notice of the relief sought.

The court also held that the absence of evidence of the current value of the home did not result in injustice, particularly given the appellant’s failure to participate or provide disclosure.

The children's aid society sought extended care and deemed custody orders for four Indigenous children who had been in temporary care for five years following the death of their two-year-old sibling.

The parents sought the return of the children under a supervision order.

The court found the children remained in need of protection due to the mother's severe anxiety, which manifested in unfounded medical and sexual abuse allegations, and the parents' historical neglect.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the CYFSA and the Federal Act, the court granted the society's plan, placing two children in extended society care and two in the deemed custody of kin caregivers.

Supervised access was ordered for three children, while no access was ordered for one child whose severe special needs resulted in extreme dysregulation following parental visits.

The applicant sought exclusive possession of the matrimonial home due to the respondent's creation of an intolerable living environment, characterized by filth and damage.

The respondent moved to set aside an ex parte order granting exclusive possession, alleging material non-disclosure and seeking his own exclusive possession and primary residency of the children.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion and granted the applicant's renewed motion, finding compelling evidence of the deplorable living conditions and the respondent's inadequate explanations.

The court also granted the applicant interim sole decision-making and primary residency for the children, with parenting time for the respondent based on the children's wishes.

The applicant mother sought an interim order permitting her to relocate with the parties' 5-year-old daughter from Sarnia to Aurora for employment purposes.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought shared parenting time and joint decision-making responsibility.

The court found that the mother had met the burden of proving the relocation was in the child's best interests, noting the financial benefit to the family unit and the mother's inability to find suitable employment in Sarnia.

The court granted the interim relocation, awarded the mother decision-making responsibility for education and extracurricular activities, ordered joint decision-making for health and religion, and set out a parenting schedule for the father.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order finalizing equalization payments and property division in a matrimonial case that followed the appellant's conviction for first-degree murder of his wife.

The motion judge ordered the appellant to pay the Estate $410,000 plus interest, with payment secured through a vesting order on property, vesting of bank account funds for child support, and transfer of 50% of the appellant's pension to the Estate.

The appellant raised four grounds of appeal: lack of procedural fairness, reliance on a settlement conference statement, unequal equalization payment, and failure to adjust child support.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness, no error in relying on the sworn Net Family Property statement, and that the unequal division was discretionary and justified given the circumstances.