John Summers

The parties separated after an eight-year relationship during which they had three children.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, restricted parenting time for the respondent father, child support, spousal support, and $400,000 for unjust enrichment.

The court ordered joint decision-making responsibility and significantly expanded the father's parenting time, finding the mother had unjustifiably restricted his access.

The court imputed an income of $82,768 to the self-employed father and ordered retroactive and ongoing child support.

The mother's claims for spousal support and unjust enrichment were dismissed, as the court imputed a part-time income to her and found no evidence of a joint family venture regarding the father's farming assets.

Following a Reference regarding the partition and sale of a jointly owned property, the court determined the costs payable by the parties.

The respondent Banifatemi, who was completely successful on the Reference, was awarded partial indemnity costs of $8,238.40 payable by the applicant.

The applicant and the respondent Abdollahpour had divided success; the court ordered the respondent Abdollahpour to pay the applicant reduced costs of $2,000.00.

The applicant sought costs following a family law trial where she was the successful party, obtaining judgment for a property claim, child support arrears, spousal support, and parental decision-making.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, noting the respondent made reasonable offers on financial issues that could have shortened the trial.

The court also considered the parties' behaviour, including the applicant's rigidity on parenting issues and the respondent's withholding of funds.

The applicant was awarded costs fixed at $28,000.00.

The parties separated after a short relationship marked by domestic violence.

The mother sought sole decision-making and restricted parenting time, while the father sought equal parenting time and joint decision-making.

The court granted the father expanded parenting time but declined to order equal time or joint decision-making due to the history of poor communication and the child's transition difficulties.

The mother was ordered to consult the father on major decisions.

The court also ordered the father to pay retroactive child support, a lump sum for spousal support, and a share of the proceeds from the sale of his home based on unjust enrichment.

The moving party father brought a motion for interim primary residential care of the parties' three children, alleging that the responding party mother had alienated the children from him following a child protection intervention.

The mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the motion, arguing that the children wished to remain with the mother and that a forced separation could be traumatic.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding that the facts regarding the family's history and the allegations of alienation were highly contested and could not be resolved on a written record alone.

The court maintained the status quo of the mother having interim sole custody, ordered reunification counselling, and expedited the matter for trial.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a 2016 access order to allow for unsupervised alternate weekend and mid-week access.

The respondent mother opposed the motion and sought retroactive child support.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding he failed to establish a material change in circumstances as he had not addressed previous concerns regarding his reckless behaviour and substance abuse.

The court granted the mother's request for retroactive child support, ordering the father to pay support based on his income commencing March 1, 2016, as he had failed to disclose his income increases.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary sole custody, child support based on an imputed income of $550,000, and retroactive support.

The respondent opposed the imputed income, claiming hardship, and sought specified overnight parenting time.

The court declined to impute income at this stage, instead basing temporary child support on the respondent's 2018 income of $492,153.

The court ordered retroactive support adjustments, declined to make a temporary custody order, and granted the respondent overnight parenting time every second weekend.

The moving party (respondent in the family application) sought to strike the application or suspend a temporary spousal support order due to the responding party's failure to comply with a disclosure order and delay the proceedings.

The responding party had failed to produce income information, medical records regarding a pain management clinic, and pharmacy records.

The court found the non-disclosure to be willful and significant to the moving party's defense against the spousal support claim.

The court declined to strike the application but imposed a strict timetable, stayed the temporary spousal support order until disclosure is complete, and ordered that support be reduced once reinstated.

The applicant sought to terminate spousal support payable to the respondent, arguing a material change in circumstances due to his unemployment and the respondent's improved financial situation following an inheritance.

The court found a material change had occurred, noting the applicant's substantial and continuous income reduction and the respondent's increased assets.

The court reduced spousal support to $1 per year effective January 1, 2019, but declined to terminate it entirely, finding a continuing compensatory and needs-based entitlement.

In a family law trial following a 15-year marriage, the court determined the equalization of net family property and the methodology for its payment.

The father claimed occupation rent, which was dismissed as it was not pled and lacked an evidentiary basis.

The court calculated the equalization payment owed by the father to the mother at $144,934.47.

The court ordered the father to satisfy this payment via a pension rollover, grossed up for taxes, while the mother was ordered to pay the father $128,560 for his equity in the matrimonial home.

The father's request to force the sale of the matrimonial home was dismissed, as he was no longer a co-owner and the sale was not required to satisfy an equalization payment.

Following a trial where the mother obtained sole decision-making responsibility but the father successfully maintained the existing access schedule and defended against most financial claims, both parties sought costs.

The mother sought $7,500 and the father sought $15,000.

The court found that success was divided equally and neither party's offer to settle was better than the final judgment.

The court exercised its discretion to order that each party bear their own costs.

The respondent mother brought a motion for interim spousal support, child support, section 7 expenses, sole custody, and payment of matrimonial home expenses.

The court declined to impute income to the applicant father, finding insufficient evidence that his business failure or unemployment was deliberate.

Spousal support was dismissed as the father's income was below the $20,000 floor.

The father was ordered to pay interim child support based on an income of $15,900, along with a 50% contribution to summer camp expenses.

The requests for sole custody and matrimonial home expenses were dismissed, and costs were awarded to the father.

Both parties sought costs following motions dealing with child support, spousal support, custody and access, and the matrimonial home.

The court found that success was divided on both the agreed-upon and disputed issues.

Considering the lack of formal offers to settle and the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court made no order as to costs.

The applicant sought orders concerning custody and access of two children following separation.

Both parties, who were teachers, asserted they were active and capable parents, with the applicant requesting joint custody while alleging she had been the primary caregiver and the respondent seeking equal parenting time.

The court granted a temporary order for joint custody and implemented a rotating week‑on/week‑off parenting schedule following a short‑term holiday access arrangement.

The court declined to limit the respondent’s parenting time absent evidence justifying continued restrictions and noted insufficient information to make a longer‑term interim access determination pending trial.

Requests for production of counselling program records were dismissed as improper third‑party disclosure, while CAS records were ordered releasable subject to agency discretion.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a negligence action arising from an alleged gas leak and installation of a replacement boiler in a condominium unit.

The plaintiff alleged exposure to toxic fumes and off‑gassing from carpeting that caused multiple respiratory and neurological conditions.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to provide admissible expert evidence establishing causation between the defendants’ conduct and the alleged health injuries.

Medical reports relied upon were not in admissible affidavit form and were largely based on the plaintiff’s self‑reports.

The absence of air quality testing or expert engineering evidence linking the installation or maintenance of the boilers to the alleged injuries was fatal to the claim.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action.

Following a family law motion involving exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and support issues, the court addressed the question of costs.

The successful party sought modest costs calculated at the legal aid rate.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court considered success, the reasonableness of the parties’ behaviour, and the expectations of the unsuccessful party.

The court found the amount requested reasonable in light of the outcome and the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs.

Costs were awarded against the unsuccessful party.

A family law trial addressing custody, access, child support, and a claim for occupational rent following the parties’ separation.

The court considered the best interests of the children under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act and the history of conflict between the parents, including past peace bonds and communication difficulties.

Evidence showed the mother had been the primary caregiver and provided a stable home environment, while the father’s involvement had been inconsistent.

Joint custody was rejected due to the absence of demonstrated historical cooperation and effective communication between the parties.

The court ordered guideline child support and dismissed the father’s claim for occupational rent, finding it barred by the parties’ separation agreement and unsupported on the evidence.

Following a nine-day custody trial, the respondents sought costs against the applicant.

The court found the applicant was largely unsuccessful in seeking custody or joint custody and obtained only limited access, far less than requested in pleadings, opening statements, or settlement offers.

The respondents’ positions and settlement offers were closer to the trial outcome, though aspects of their conduct were criticized, including limited bad-faith conduct during an earlier period and a contempt finding against one respondent.

Applying the Family Law Rules regarding success, offers to settle, and litigation conduct, the court awarded the applicant costs for the contempt finding but otherwise granted partial indemnity costs to one respondent.

After set-off, the applicant was ordered to pay net costs to that respondent.

The applicant step-mother sought joint custody and extensive access to her nine-year-old step-daughter following her separation from the respondent father.

The biological parents, who shared custody, opposed the application and sought to limit access, citing the child's resistance and the high conflict between the parties.

The court found that all three adults contributed to the deterioration of the child's relationship with the applicant.

The court denied joint custody but ordered limited, graduated access, conditional on all parties attending mandatory counseling to repair the relationship.

The respondent father was also found in contempt for failing to facilitate court-ordered access.

Additionally, the court resolved child support for the parties' biological child based on current income and ordered the applicant to remove the respondent from a joint line of credit.