John Paul Paciocco

Following the dismissal of the applicant father's motion to change child support for his adult daughter, the court determined the issue of costs.

The respondent mother was entirely successful and had made an offer to settle that was more favourable than the final outcome.

The court noted the applicant's unreasonable behaviour and history of avoiding child support obligations.

The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $18,410 on a partial recovery basis, payable within 30 days.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a child support order, seeking to retroactively vary arrears and ongoing support for his 21-year-old daughter.

He argued that new evidence regarding Metis Nation educational funding was available and that she was no longer a child of the marriage.

The court declined to go behind previous appellate orders regarding the funding.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the daughter's enrollment in a new post-secondary program in London, Ontario, but concluded she remained a child of the marriage.

The father was ordered to continue paying the previously fixed guideline support of $641.19 per month until the completion of her program.

The applicant, the maternal aunt of the child, sought ongoing and retroactive child support, as well as section 7 expenses, from the respondent biological father.

The respondent claimed undue hardship to pay less than the table amount.

The court dismissed the undue hardship claim, ordering the table amount based on the respondent's income.

The court denied the claims for section 7 expenses, finding them not to be extraordinary.

The court awarded a lump sum of $5,500 for retroactive child support, considering the date of effective notice and the respondent's prior voluntary contributions.

Following the tragic death of the children's mother, the maternal aunt and the biological father brought competing claims for interim custody.

The children had been residing with the aunt and attending school in her district prior to the mother's death.

The court found conflicting evidence regarding the father's prior involvement and noted the children's special needs required stability.

The court ordered interim joint custody, with the children residing with the aunt during the week to maintain their school placement, and with the father on weekends, pending a full trial.

In a custody dispute between a children's maternal aunt and their father following the death of the children's mother, a First Nation band sought to be added as a party or alternatively granted intervener status.

The band argued its participation was necessary to assist the court in assessing the best interests of children of First Nations heritage.

The court held that under the Children’s Law Reform Act and the Family Law Rules, a non-party should only be added where their presence is necessary to determine the issues in dispute.

Because the father was a member of the First Nation and could present cultural and community evidence, the band’s participation was not necessary.

The motion to be added as a party and the alternative request for intervener or amicus status were dismissed.

On competing motions for interim custody and access following the recent separation of unmarried parents, the court considered allegations regarding substance use, parenting capacity, and communication difficulties.

The evidence demonstrated that prior to separation the parties successfully co‑parented their young child and both were capable caregivers.

The court found no compelling evidence that either parent posed a risk to the child and concluded that maintaining substantial involvement by both parents was in the child’s best interests.

A temporary shared parenting arrangement was ordered pending further review, with the schedule designed to reflect each parent’s work commitments.

No costs were awarded due to divided success and the parties’ limited means.

The parties separated after a 22-year marriage.

The applicant sought an equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The respondent had declared bankruptcy post-separation.

The court held that the equalization claim was stayed by the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act as the applicant had not obtained leave to lift the stay.

The court ordered the respondent to pay spousal support of $3,500 per month, reducing to $3,119 per month once the applicant was expected to be able to work and earn minimum wage.

The respondent was also ordered to maintain the applicant on his medical benefits and designate her as the beneficiary of 80% of his life insurance policies.

Shareholders applied for a declaration that a respondent shareholder was out of time to commence arbitration under a shareholder agreement governing the purchase of shares after termination of employment.

The court held that it had jurisdiction to determine the limitation period issue notwithstanding the arbitration clause.

Applying the discoverability principles under the Limitations Act, 2002 and s. 52 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, the court concluded the limitation period began when the value of the shares was determined and the applicants refused payment, not when the employment relationship ended.

The arbitration had been commenced within the two-year limitation period by written notice demanding arbitration.

The court declined to interfere with the appointment of the arbitrator or the arbitral procedure.

Following a lengthy civil trial concerning whether disputed land constituted a public road, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs had succeeded on all substantive issues and had made multiple written offers to settle that were closer to the final judgment than the defendants’ proposals.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered the parties’ offers to settle and the plaintiffs’ overall success.

The court reduced portions of the plaintiffs’ claimed preparation costs but found the hourly rates, daily trial fees, and disbursements generally reasonable.

Costs were fixed at $90,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST payable by the defendants jointly and severally.

The plaintiffs sought a declaration that a portion of the Eagle Mine Road traversing the defendants' property was a public road, while the defendants applied to close the road under the Road Access Act.

After a lengthy trial involving historical evidence of road use dating back to the 1930s, the court found that the road had been dedicated to and accepted by the public through long-standing, open, and unobstructed use.

The court dismissed the defendants' application to close the road, declared it a public road within the jurisdiction of the local roads board, and granted an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with its public use and maintenance.

The applicant spouse brought an interim motion seeking child support for an adult child attending college, interim spousal support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The respondent sought an order for the sale of the matrimonial home and livestock located on the property.

The court determined the respondent’s income by averaging several years of earnings due to fluctuating overtime and ordered guideline child support for the summer months while the adult child resided with the applicant, with the issue to be reviewed pending further information regarding educational expenses.

Interim spousal support was ordered based on the parties’ financial circumstances and the applicant’s unemployment, with the court declining to impute income at the interim stage.

The respondent’s motion for sale of the home and livestock was adjourned pending proper valuations to permit accurate net family property calculations.