John P. Schuman

The respondent father sought costs against both the mother and her counsel, Rocco Achampong, following the stay of his Ontario Court of Justice custody application when the mother commenced divorce proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice.

The father claimed $6,135 in full indemnity costs.

The court found that while the mother was entitled to proceed in the Superior Court of Justice, her counsel's conduct in bringing a motion without notice in that court while actively corresponding with the father's counsel about an imminent motion in the Ontario Court of Justice constituted a breach of professional obligations.

The court awarded costs against the counsel personally but dismissed the claim against the mother.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision that used final offer selection to determine child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The appellant argued that the process was contrary to law because it was ill-suited for multiple issues, lacked sworn testimony and cross-examination, and the arbitrator's reasons were inadequate.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that family law arbitrations are not required to mirror court processes, the parties were treated equally and fairly, and the arbitrator's reasons were sufficient.

The applicant brought an emergency motion for temporary custody of two young children following a recent separation and an incident that resulted in the applicant being removed from the matrimonial home by police.

The respondent opposed the motion on the basis that the matter was not urgent.

The court found urgency under Rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules due to the abrupt separation of the children from their primary caregiver and the infant’s dependence on breastfeeding.

Considering the best interests of the children and the applicant’s role as primary caregiver, the court ordered that temporary custody be transferred to the applicant.

The respondent was granted generous access and further steps in the proceeding were directed, including an early case conference and financial disclosure.

Following the dismissal of a husband's motion seeking reconsideration of an earlier family law order, the wife sought costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court rejected allegations that the motion had been brought in bad faith but found the husband's decision to pursue reconsideration rather than an appeal to be unreasonable.

As a result, the court determined that full recovery of the wife's reasonable costs was warranted, subject to a minor reduction reflecting items for which costs had previously been denied.

The husband was ordered to pay the reduced costs amount, enforceable as spousal support through the Family Responsibility Office.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's order awarding joint custody of the child to both parents and establishing a mechanism for determining private tutoring.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the joint custody order was consistent with the best interests of the child, the parties' initial separation agreement, and the recommendation of the Children's Lawyer.

The court also upheld the tutoring provision as a common-sense mechanism to identify the best educational support for the child.

The appellant father appealed a trial judgment that awarded sole custody of the parties' three children to the respondent mother, imputed income to him for child support purposes, awarded open-ended spousal support, and determined the equalization of net family property including a farm.

The Court of Appeal upheld the custody award and the finding of intentional underemployment, noting the trial judge was in the best position to assess the evidence.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding spousal support and property equalization, finding the trial judge's reasons were inadequate to permit appellate review.

Those issues were remitted for a new trial.