D. Piccoli

The self-represented respondent brought a motion to set aside a final consent order on the basis of fraud, financial non-disclosure, and duress.

The applicant sought to dismiss the motion and prohibit the respondent from bringing further motions.

The court found no evidence of fraud, material non-disclosure, or duress, but set aside the paragraph of the final order regarding equalization because neither party had plead it.

The court dismissed the request for a parenting coordinator, ordered the parties to attend mediation intake, and prohibited the respondent from bringing further motions in the proceeding, while setting parameters for any future Motion to Change.

Following a successful motion regarding a parenting schedule and school enrollment, the applicant sought full recovery costs of $21,425.93.

The respondent opposed, citing limited ability to pay and arguing the costs were excessive.

The court found the applicant was substantially successful and behaved reasonably, while the respondent's position was unreasonable.

Applying the principles of proportionality and reasonableness under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant $14,000 in costs, payable in monthly installments of $400.

The parties separated and the mother unilaterally removed the children from the matrimonial home.

On an interim motion, the father sought to change the parenting schedule from 2-2-3 to 2-2-5-5 and to have the eldest child attend school in his catchment area, relying on an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) report.

The mother opposed the changes and sought to have the child attend school in her catchment area.

The court granted the father's requests, finding that the 2-2-5-5 schedule would reduce conflict through fewer exchanges, and that the mother's unilateral actions and alienating behaviour made the father's proposed school the better choice for the child's stability.

The moving party in a family law proceeding brought a motion seeking a vesting order to transfer ownership of an inherited property into the responding party's name, arguing it was necessary to make the property available to their joint creditor.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under the Estates Administration Act because the responding party only had a beneficial interest in the residue of the estate, not a specific property interest.

Furthermore, the court held it lacked jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act and the Family Law Act because there was no existing order establishing a payment liability against the responding party.

Following a nine-and-a-half-day family law trial regarding parenting time, schooling, and child support, the applicant father sought $40,000 in costs.

The respondent mother argued each party should bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found the mother behaved unreasonably regarding child support, schooling, and communication, and noted the father's settlement offers were closer to the final trial outcome.

The court ordered the mother to pay $20,000 in costs to the father.

The parties, who separated in 2016, proceeded to a trial to resolve issues regarding parenting time, school choice, and child support for their two children.

The court declined to adopt the OCL's recommendation for sole decision-making to the mother, finding both parents capable but struggling with communication.

The court ordered a shared parenting schedule, with the children remaining at their current school and the father granted decision-making authority over school choice to provide stability.

Applying section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines, the court found that given the shared parenting arrangement and the parties' respective financial situations, no ongoing child support was payable by either party.

The Children's Aid Society and the father brought summary judgment motions seeking a custody order placing the child with the father.

The mother conceded custody but sought specified access, which the father opposed, preferring access to be at his discretion.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the child's continued need for protection and placement with the father.

The court granted the custody order and, finding that the father had not encouraged the child's relationship with the maternal family, ordered specified progressive access for the mother and maternal grandmother, including reintegration counselling.

Following a trial on a motion to change spousal support where success was divided, the court determined costs.

The court found that the responding party, Ms. Craig, behaved unreasonably by seeking relief the court had no jurisdiction to grant, refusing to admit facts, and significantly lengthening the trial.

Despite her limited ability to pay, the court ordered her to pay $14,000 in costs to the moving party at a rate of $50 per month, which may be offset against any equalization owed to her.

Following a successful motion regarding a summer parenting schedule, the applicant sought full indemnity costs of $9,850.93.

The respondent did not file costs submissions and had previously stated she would not comply with court orders.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules by overtly deciding not to comply with court orders.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $7,500, reducing the requested amount slightly for proportionality.

Following a trial where the court declined to set aside a cohabitation agreement, the successful party sought costs of $29,724.65.

The opposing party argued for a reduced award of $12,000 payable at $100 per month due to financial hardship.

The court found the opposing party acted unreasonably during the litigation by insisting on arguing baseless reasons for setting aside the agreement.

However, the court noted some of the claimed fees were already addressed in a prior order or could have been performed by junior staff.

The court ordered costs of $15,000.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order placing the child in the father's care under supervision.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the child's return to her care and a trial.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the mother's failure to ensure the child's school attendance, her high-conflict relationship with the society and the father, and the resulting emotional harm to the child.

The court granted summary judgment, found the child in need of protection, placed the child with the father for six months under supervision, and limited the mother's access to written letters.

Following a family law trial, the applicant mother sought costs of $92,297.84 on a full indemnity basis, arguing the respondent father acted in bad faith and unreasonably.

The court found divided success on most issues except child support, where the mother was wholly successful.

While the court did not find the father acted in bad faith, it concluded he behaved unreasonably by continually denying family violence, which lengthened the trial.

The court ordered the father to pay $45,000 in costs, with $18,459.57 designated as enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant husband sought to set aside a cohabitation agreement and its spousal support waiver under sections 56(4) and 33(4) of the Family Law Act.

He argued lack of financial disclosure, failure to understand the agreement due to a learning disability and memory lapse, unconscionability, undue influence, and duress.

The court found the husband's claims of memory loss not credible, noted he received adequate independent legal advice, and determined there was no material non-disclosure or unconscionable conduct by the respondent wife.

The court dismissed the claims, upholding the agreement and the spousal support waiver.

The respondent husband brought a motion to change a final order, seeking to terminate spousal support after paying for over 18 years.

The applicant wife opposed the motion and sought an increase in support, among other relief.

The court determined the date of separation was late October 2002.

On consent, the parties agreed to continue support at $1,200 per month until January 2024, and terminate support entirely when the wife turns 65 in July 2025.

The court ordered support to be reduced to $600 per month for the interim period between February 2024 and July 2025.

The husband was also ordered to maintain a reducing amount of life insurance naming the wife as irrevocable beneficiary, but his obligation to pay her Trillium Drug Program deductible was terminated.

The applicant mother and respondent father sought a final determination on the parenting schedule and child support for their five-year-old son.

The mother sought primary care and a restricted schedule for the father due to a history of severe domestic violence, for which the father had been criminally convicted.

The father sought equal parenting time, arguing he was a capable parent and the mother was alienating him.

The court found that the father had committed family violence, lacked insight into its impact, and harboured ongoing animosity towards the mother, making an equal parenting schedule contrary to the child's best interests.

The court ordered the mother's proposed parenting schedule, alternating Easter weekends, and imputed income to the father for the purpose of calculating ongoing child support.

Following a summary judgment motion in a child protection proceeding where the children were placed in the mother's custody, the mother sought costs of $4,000 from the father.

The mother argued the father was extremely unreasonable in proposing the children live with his sister.

The court reviewed the jurisprudence on costs in child protection matters, noting that costs between parents are only awarded in rare and exceptional circumstances involving bad faith or extreme unreasonableness.

The court found that while the father's position was unreasonable, it did not reach the threshold required to order costs in a child protection proceeding, and dismissed the mother's request.

The applicant father sought orders requiring the children to attend counselling, restricting travel discussions, and varying child support in a shared parenting arrangement.

The mother opposed the counselling and travel orders, and disputed the father's request to impute her income at $67,000 following a period of disability.

The court dismissed the father's requests for counselling and travel restrictions, finding the children were well-adjusted and the primary issue was high parental conflict.

The court imputed part-time and full-time minimum wage income to the mother for the periods she was not receiving disability benefits, and ordered child support to be calculated using the set-off approach under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and an order placing them in the custody of their mother.

The father, who was facing criminal charges related to his older daughter and had bail conditions preventing contact with the children, opposed the motion.

The court applied the test for summary judgment in child protection cases and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court found the children in need of protection due to the father's unavailability and the risk of emotional harm.

The children were placed in the custody of the mother, with access to the father and their half-sister to be at the children's wishes and the mother's discretion.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for extended society care with no access for a two-year-old child.

The parents, who both have developmental delays, opposed the motion and sought the return of the child with a supervision order.

The court found there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the parents lacked the capacity to parent independently and did not have adequate 24/7 supports in place.

The court granted summary judgment placing the child in extended society care, but ordered that the parents have access at the discretion of the society, finding that access was positive and in the child's best interests.

The parties separated in 2016 and have one child.

The mother sought sole custody, while the father sought sole or joint custody.

The father had made multiple unfounded reports to child protection services and police regarding the mother, and relocated without consent.

The court granted the mother sole custody, finding the parties unable to communicate effectively and the father's conduct unreasonable.

The court also imputed income to the father for child support purposes, finding him intentionally unemployed while attending college, as he was capable of working part-time and during summers.