John P.L. McDermot

In a family law proceeding, the moving party brought a motion seeking a declaration of contempt after the responding party transferred substantial funds to an offshore account contrary to a prior non-dissipation order.

The court found the order was clear, the transfers were admitted, and the conduct was wilful or at least wilfully blind.

The responding party’s argument that the transfers merely repaid a debt and were done without understanding the order was rejected.

The court held that court orders must be obeyed and that paying a creditor does not justify breaching a preservation order during ongoing support and property claims.

A declaration of contempt was made, and the responding party was given 60 days to purge the contempt by paying the funds into court.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an interim variation of a prior custody and access order following an incident where the respondent became severely intoxicated while caring for the parties’ young children, leaving them unsupervised and causing police involvement.

The court found that the seriousness of the incident constituted a material change in circumstances affecting the best interests of the children under s. 29 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

While rejecting the applicant’s request to restrict the respondent to day-only supervised access by a professional supervisor, the court ordered a temporary variation requiring supervised access with the respondent’s parents and continued alcohol monitoring through a SCRAM bracelet.

The court imposed a regime allowing limited overnight access and ordered that any monitored alcohol consumption would immediately suspend access.

The order was subject to review after six months.

Following an urgent family law motion regarding temporary custody and parenting arrangements, the court was required to determine costs after the parties left without addressing the issue.

The respondent father sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully obtaining a nesting arrangement for the children and related financial orders.

The court found that the respondent achieved substantial success on the motion and that the applicant mother had engaged in unreasonable conduct by unilaterally removing the children from the matrimonial home and seeking to restrict the father’s parenting time.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that costs should exceed partial indemnity due to the applicant’s conduct.

Costs were therefore awarded to the respondent.

The defendant sought costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff's Small Claims Court appeal.

The defendant claimed full indemnity costs of $4,203.60, while the plaintiff argued costs should be on a partial indemnity basis.

The court applied the principle that full indemnity costs are only awarded in rare and exceptional circumstances.

Finding no such circumstances, the court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs of $3,000, to be set off against the judgment owing to the plaintiff.

The respondent father in a child protection proceeding brought a motion for costs against the Children's Aid Society, arguing he had made offers to settle that reflected the final outcome of Crown wardship.

The Society brought a cross-motion to prohibit the father from bringing further motions without leave.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding his offers were either not true offers or contained unreasonable conditions, and noted costs are rarely awarded against a Society in protection cases.

The court also dismissed the Society's cross-motion, finding insufficient evidence of a multiplicity of frivolous motions.