Joseph Emele Sloniowski

The applicant was previously successful in her application for dependant support from her late spouse's estate.

She sought costs from the respondent sister, who had contested the application and made unfounded allegations of misappropriation.

The respondent sought costs from the estate.

The court noted that while the litigation arose partly because the intestate failed to make adequate provision for his spouse, awarding costs from the estate would effectively penalize the successful applicant, who was awarded the entire residue.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $13,500.

The applicant, the common law spouse of the intestate for approximately two decades, applied for support from the estate under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The intestate died suddenly, leaving an estate of modest value and no other dependants.

The court found that the intestate had not made adequate provision for the applicant's proper support, considering her age, health, and accustomed standard of living.

Applying the moral duty framework, the court ordered the entire residue of the estate to be conveyed to the applicant.

This endorsement addresses a costs motion brought by the Respondent following the Applicant's unsuccessful motion for document production, further questioning, and interim legal funding.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,000 to the Respondent, finding that while the Applicant's position lacked merit, it was not unreasonable enough to warrant substantial indemnity.

The applicant brought a motion to change a spousal support order, seeking an increase in quantum, and further moved for an order for production and disclosure of financial records, and for the respondent to pay approximately $37,000 for past and future accounting and legal fees under Rule 24(12).

The respondent sought termination of support.

The court dismissed the applicant's motions, finding that the requested financial disclosure was not relevant to the respondent's means for spousal support and was disproportionate to the issues at stake.

The court also declined to order the respondent to fund the applicant's expert witness or legal fees, noting the applicant had sufficient assets.

In a family law proceeding involving parenting issues, the respondent brought a motion seeking production of marriage counselling notes and records created by a psychologist who conducted joint counselling sessions with the parties prior to their separation.

The court held that such records are privileged and ordinarily require the consent of both parties for disclosure.

Although the court has authority to order production of privileged documents where relevant and fair to both parties, the motion was brought too close to the scheduled trial and risked necessitating an adjournment and updates to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer report.

Given the presumption of confidentiality in marriage counselling and the late timing of the request, the court found disclosure would be unfair at that stage of the proceeding.

The applicant sought temporary custody of two children pending trial in a high‑conflict parenting dispute.

Evidence included a detailed Office of the Children’s Lawyer report recommending parallel parenting and a Children’s Aid Society affidavit recommending sole custody to the respondent with supervised access.

The court found both parents demonstrated poor cooperation and had exposed the children to conflict but determined the OCL investigation was more objective and persuasive.

The court rejected reliance on uncorroborated statements from a child experiencing emotional difficulties and declined to impose supervised parenting time.

A temporary parallel parenting regime with divided residential time and shared decision‑making responsibilities was ordered pending trial.