John E. Summers

The father brought a motion for equal time sharing of the children and the immediate sale of the matrimonial home.

The mother brought a cross-motion for the appointment of a social worker to conduct a parenting assessment under s. 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court granted the father's request for week-about access, finding both parents capable and that a specified schedule would lessen conflict.

The court dismissed the motion for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home to maintain stability for the children pending trial.

The court granted the mother's cross-motion, ordering a s. 30 parenting assessment with costs shared equally.

The applicant father sought an interim order prohibiting the respondent mother from relocating their two children to Nova Scotia.

The mother sought an interim order permitting the relocation and for child support.

The parties separated following an altercation, and the mother moved to Nova Scotia where she had secured employment.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz and Plumley factors, the court found that the mother was the primary caregiver, the move was in good faith, and the children wished to relocate.

The court permitted the interim relocation, finding a strong probability the mother would prevail at trial, and ordered the father to pay $639 per month in child support.

The Applicant sought substantial indemnity costs of $9,638.47 for an interim motion, while the Respondent sought no costs.

The court found the Applicant was largely successful on the interim motion.

The Respondent's conduct was deemed unreasonable, including non-compliance with disclosure orders, changing positions on property sale, and late filing of materials and an unreasonable settlement offer.

Despite this, the court did not award substantial indemnity costs.

Considering factors under Family Law Rules, r. 24(12), the court fixed costs at $6,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, to be paid by the Respondent to the Applicant.

The Respondent's impecuniosity was not a reason to deny costs given her unreasonable litigation conduct.

The Applicant sought the sale of a jointly-titled property under the Partition Act and opposed interim spousal support for the Respondent.

The Respondent opposed the sale, citing her mother's health and a potential gift, and sought interim spousal support.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the property, finding the Respondent's reasons unpersuasive and her financial capacity insufficient to purchase the Applicant's interest.

The court also declined to order interim spousal support, noting the Applicant was already covering significant property expenses benefiting the Respondent and her mother, which effectively provided a non-taxable benefit equivalent to potential support.

The respondent sought a change in interim access for Easter holidays and a set-off of costs against child support arrears.

The applicant opposed the Easter access request but consented to the cost set-off.

The court dismissed the motion for interim Easter access, finding no basis to vary the existing interim order, which had adjourned further access issues pending a Children's Lawyer report and contemplated holiday access beyond Easter.

The court emphasized the high test for varying interim access and noted the child's views and preferences.

Costs were fixed for the motion, and a net set-off was ordered against child support arrears, resolving all outstanding costs between the parties.

The respondent father sought costs following a motion for increased interim access and the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).

The court had granted increased access on modified terms and declined the OCL request.

The father claimed success and sought $3000 in costs, relying on an offer to settle.

The applicant mother argued that success was divided and no costs should be awarded.

The court found that success was indeed divided and declined to make any order as to costs.

The applicant sought an order for the respondent to attend in Ottawa for questioning.

The respondent, residing in Virginia and citing mental health issues, sought to be questioned via Skype.

The court found the respondent's mental health challenges justified an alternative method and ordered questioning via teleconferencing from a court reporting facility in Virginia, with specific parameters to ensure fairness and efficiency, including the respondent bearing the cost of the Virginia reporting services.

On appeal from a trial judgment in a family law matter following marriage breakdown, the appellant challenged the trial judge's order requiring her to pay the respondent $128,560 for his interest in the matrimonial home and requiring the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $166,674.64 by pension rollover.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in refusing to set off the respondent's equity in the home against the equalization payment owed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge had jurisdiction to make the order and did not err in exercising his discretion to refuse the set-off.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claim against his father for an order permitting him to see his mother, and an order declaring him a vexatious litigant.

The Court of Appeal upheld both orders, finding no basis for the court to compel a mentally competent adult to require another mentally competent adult to interact with a third family member.

The court also found no reasonable apprehension of bias and upheld the vexatious litigant designation based on the application judge's thorough reasons.

This endorsement addresses costs following a motion to change child support, which the respondent brought.

Although success on the underlying motion was divided, the respondent was deemed the more successful party, entitling them to costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant's offer to settle was not more favourable than the outcome.

Considering the divided success, the reasonableness of the lawyers' rates and time spent, and the principles of costs, the court fixed costs at $2,150, payable by the applicant to the respondent.

The respondent father brought a motion to change, seeking to terminate child support for his 18-year-old daughter on the basis that she had rejected any relationship with him.

The court applied the Farden factors and found that the daughter's decision to terminate the relationship was not without justification, given the long and complex history of high conflict between the parents.

The court concluded the daughter remained a child of the marriage under the Divorce Act and was entitled to ongoing support for her university education.

However, the court found the standard Guidelines approach inappropriate under section 3(2)(b) and ordered specific monthly amounts and shared expenses, requiring the daughter to contribute to her own education costs.

L'intimé a déposé une motion en vertu de la règle 61.06 des Règles de procédure civile pour obtenir une ordonnance de cautionnement pour dépens d'un montant de 10 000 $.

La motion découlait d'une procédure matrimoniale où les parties avaient résolu la plupart des questions en litige, la question principale au procès étant le partage des biens familiaux.

Le juge de première instance avait rendu un jugement obligeant l'appelante à payer l'intimé 128 560 $ pour sa part du foyer conjugal et obligeant l'intimé à faire un paiement d'égalisation de 144 934,47 $ par roulement de pension.

L'appelante a interjeté appel de cette décision.

The applicant father brought an application to have his respondent son declared a vexatious litigant under section 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The dispute arose from disagreements over the care of the applicant's wife (the respondent's mother).

The respondent had commenced numerous proceedings in various courts against the applicant, police officers, and others, and had filed complaints against judges and counsel when unsuccessful.

The court applied the Lang Michener principles and found that the respondent had persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted meritless and repetitive proceedings.

The court declared the respondent a vexatious litigant and prohibited him from instituting or continuing any proceedings in Ontario without leave of the court.

The plaintiff son brought an action against his defendant father seeking an order to compel access to his mother.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found it had no jurisdiction to compel mentally competent adults to interact with one another and that the statement of claim raised no genuine issue for trial.

The plaintiff's request to amend his pleadings to add various tort claims was denied as the claims were statute-barred and vexatious.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, the action was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

The parties, who are family members, disputed which real estate agent should list the matrimonial home for sale.

The respondents were successful on the motion and sought costs.

The applicant argued costs should be postponed until ancillary issues were resolved by a Master.

The court declined to postpone costs and awarded partial indemnity costs to one respondent and substantial indemnity costs to the other respondent from the date of her Rule 49 offer to settle.

The parties sought costs following an interim order for child and spousal support.

The applicant claimed costs of $9,453.59, while the respondent claimed costs for multiple appearances.

The court considered the offers to settle and the conduct of the parties, noting the respondent's unreasonable delay in disclosing his income and the unreasonableness of a term in his offer to settle regarding imputed income.

Ultimately, the court declined to award costs to either party.

The parties, who are family members, were in an acrimonious dispute regarding the sale of a mutually-owned home and could not agree on a real estate agent.

The applicant opposed severing the lot, while the property had significant potential for severance to maximize value.

The court reviewed valuation reports from two proposed agents and an appraiser.

The court selected the agent who recognized the property's potential for severance, finding this approach would best achieve the highest fair market value.

The court ordered the property to be listed with that agent and referred remaining issues to the Master.

The applicant father brought a motion regarding child support, and the respondent mother raised claims for RESP contributions, Section 7 expenses, and Child Tax Benefit payments.

The court found that the father had overpaid child support by $6,432.

The court dismissed the mother's claim for RESP reimbursement but found the father owed her $511 for his share of Section 7 expenses and $3,496 for Child Tax Benefit payments he received.

Setting off the amounts, the court ordered the mother to pay the father the net amount of $2,425 in monthly installments, plus $750 in costs.

The applicant brought an interim motion for spousal and child support.

The court found the applicant to be intentionally unemployed and imputed an income of $15,000 per year to her.

The respondent's income was determined to be $121,000 per year.

Given the shared parenting arrangement, the court ordered the set-off amount of $1,478 per month for child support.

Spousal support was ordered at $1,695 per month to equalize the parties' net disposable incomes.

The issue of retroactive support was reserved for the trial judge.

This endorsement addresses costs following the applicant's success in responding to the respondent's motion for interim spousal and child support.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, citing the respondent's unreasonable behaviour, including requiring a procedural motion for an adjournment and rejecting more favourable settlement terms.

The respondent did not provide costs submissions.

The court found the applicant was entitled to costs on a substantial indemnity basis, applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court fixed costs at $3,880, payable from the respondent's share of the matrimonial home proceeds, adjusting the applicant's requested amount based on a calculation of substantial indemnity from full indemnity figures and considering the parties' limited means.