John Michael Huculak Guest

The applicant wife sought an equalization payment following the breakdown of the parties' marriage.

The respondent husband argued that the parties were merely roommates, that a handwritten letter constituted a domestic contract overriding statutory equalization, and that equalizing the pre-marital value of the matrimonial home would be unconscionable.

The court rejected the husband's arguments, finding that the parties were engaged in a valid conjugal relationship until their physical separation in October 2020.

The court ordered the husband to pay the remaining equalization balance of $183,654.72 plus pre-judgment interest.

This endorsement addresses a motion by the applicant father, Jonathan Granda, for a temporary parenting order seeking equal parenting time on a 2-2-3 schedule.

The court reviews the parties’ caregiving history, the applicant’s mental health, allegations of family violence, and the child’s needs.

The court finds that the respondent, Brenna Duffey, was the primary caregiver and that the child requires stability, not increased transitions.

The motion is dismissed, and the existing interim parenting schedule remains in place.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order of Somji J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay agreed costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

Following a motion for partition and sale of the matrimonial home and a cross-motion for spousal support, the applicant sought costs of $5,337.99.

The court found the applicant was the successful party on the primary issue of the home's sale.

The court determined that the respondent acted unreasonably by changing her position on the sale and serving materials late, which unnecessarily increased the applicant's legal fees.

The court ordered the respondent to pay costs fixed at $4,200, payable from her share of the net sale proceeds.

The respondent (moving party) brought a motion under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to set aside a final order made following an uncontested trial.

He alleged the applicant obtained the order through fraud and misrepresentation regarding the duration of their cohabitation and financial integration.

The court applied the Mountain View Farms factors and found no fraud or mistake.

Although the moving party established an arguable case regarding the start date of the joint family venture, the court dismissed the motion due to his unexplained delay, failure to participate in the original proceedings, and the potential prejudice to the responding party.

This endorsement determines costs following a decision granting the Applicant interim unsupervised access.

The Applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis, arguing he was the successful party and the Respondent acted unreasonably by failing to file responding material.

The Respondent opposed, citing financial hardship and alleging unreasonable conduct by the Applicant.

The court found the Applicant was the successful party, although his offers to settle did not trigger full recovery costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The Respondent's failure to file material was deemed unreasonable.

Considering all factors, including the reasonableness and proportionality of the parties' behaviour and the offers to settle, the court awarded the Applicant $5,500 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable monthly.

The applicant, Michael Andrew Sealey, brought a motion seeking interim unsupervised access to the parties' 10-year-old child, L.V. The respondent, Cherie Nicole Hoyte, opposed the motion, citing past allegations of abuse, abandonment, neglect, and substance abuse, which had previously led to supervised access.

The court found no basis for a risk of harm warranting continued supervised access, noting that previous allegations were unsubstantiated and the child's recent expressed wishes appeared influenced.

The motion was granted, establishing a graduated schedule for interim unsupervised access, with specific provisions for communication with the child and access exchanges.

The respondent brought a motion to change child support and arrears.

The applicant was the successful party on the motion, as the court fixed arrears at $25,082, which was closer to her position than the respondent's.

The applicant sought costs of $11,098.02 based on her counsel's usual rate, but the court limited recovery to the actual rate charged.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $3,815.35, noting the respondent's failure to make an offer to settle.

Following a successful motion to change regarding retroactive child support, the applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis from the date of her offer to settle.

The respondent argued for a reduction based on partial success on a cross-motion, unnecessary costs, and his financial circumstances.

The court found the applicant's offers to settle were reasonable and the respondent's focus on the cross-motion was unreasonable.

The court awarded the applicant $15,000 in costs, noting that limited financial means cannot be used as a shield against costs orders.

The payor father brought a motion to change seeking to terminate child support for two adult children as of their 18th birthdays.

The recipient mother responded by seeking retroactive increases in child support back to 2006 based on the father's undisclosed income increases, as well as section 7 expenses.

The court terminated support for the adult children as of the dates they withdrew from high school, rather than their 18th birthdays.

Applying the D.B.S. framework, the court ordered retroactive child support back to 2013, finding the father's failure to disclose significant income increases constituted blameworthy conduct, and fixed arrears at $25,082.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 2005 child support order, seeking retroactive and ongoing child support and section 7 expenses for two children.

The respondent had failed to disclose significant income increases over several years.

The court applied the D.B.S. factors and ordered retroactive support from 2009 to 2016, finding the applicant had a reasonable excuse for delay and the respondent engaged in blameworthy conduct by hiding his income.

The court also imputed income to the respondent for 2016, finding he was intentionally underemployed after being terminated for cause due to unauthorized vacation.