T. Price

Following separation and the applicant's assignment in bankruptcy, the respondent sought to quantify claims against the applicant arising from his failure to comply with their separation agreement.

The respondent claimed increased mortgage costs resulting from the applicant's refusal to sign a mortgage renewal, reimbursement for payments on two joint lines of credit, and sought to characterize these debts as spousal support to survive the bankruptcy.

The court found the debts were property and debt settlements, not spousal support, and valued the respondent's claims for filing in the bankruptcy.

The court also held that a post-bankruptcy costs award relating to pre-bankruptcy litigation was provable in the bankruptcy.

A request to revive a withdrawn divorce claim was denied.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion to vary a temporary care and custody order, seeking to remove two children from the care of the respondent mother and place them with the respondent father or in society care.

The motion was precipitated by a physical altercation between one child and the mother's roommate.

The court found a material change in circumstances for the older child, who exhibited severe behavioural issues and conflict with the mother, and ordered him to remain in the father's care.

However, the court found no material change for the younger child and ordered her returned to the mother's care, subject to strict supervision terms.

Following a family law trial regarding parenting time and decision-making responsibility, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The applicant sought $72,500 in costs, while the respondent argued each party should bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found that while success was divided, the applicant was the more successful party on the primary issue of parenting time.

After considering the parties' offers to settle, unreasonable behaviour by the respondent, and making deductions for excessive or unsubstantiated docket entries, the court ordered the respondent to pay $27,000 in costs to the applicant.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding interim parenting time for their three children.

The court previously restricted the respondent father's parenting time due to his unvaccinated status, but the Divisional Court overturned this restriction.

The court balanced the children's need for a meaningful relationship with their father against the mother's historical role as primary caregiver and allegations of domestic violence.

The court ordered an expanded interim parenting schedule for the father, including alternating weekends and mid-week visits, totaling approximately 38 hours per week.

The parties separated after a 13-year marriage during which they operated successful businesses together.

The applicant sought spousal support under the Family Law Act, claiming she was unable to work due to medical conditions stemming from carbon monoxide exposure at work.

The respondent opposed the claim and sought a divorce.

The court lifted the statutory stay on the provincial support claim, found the applicant entitled to non-compensatory needs-based support due to her disability, and imputed some income to her.

The court ordered the respondent to pay indefinite ongoing spousal support of $1,450 per month and retroactive arrears of $90,399.

The mother brought a motion to change a final parenting order, seeking primary care of the parties' daughter (C2) after C2 exhibited extreme resistance to the week-about parenting schedule.

The father sought to enforce the shared parenting order and requested sole decision-making responsibility.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding C2 due to her resistance, which was exacerbated by the mother's overprotectiveness, failure to exercise parental authority, and lingering anger toward the father.

The court ordered a gradual return to a shared parenting schedule for C2 and temporarily suspended the mother's right to make medical and extracurricular decisions due to her unilateral decision-making.

The respondent father brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce Minutes of Settlement that resolved parenting time and eliminated his child support arrears, or alternatively, to vary his child support obligations due to financial hardship.

The court granted summary judgment on the parenting issues, finding no genuine issue for trial.

However, the court refused to enforce the settlement regarding child support arrears, holding that parents cannot bargain away a child's right to support, and directed that issue to trial.

The court also granted a temporary order reducing ongoing child support and arrears payments based on the father's reduced 2021 income.

Following a focused hearing on a motion to change spousal support, the applicant sought $30,000 in costs.

The respondent argued for no costs due to divided success and her limited financial means.

The court found that while success was divided, the applicant was the more successful party and had made reasonable offers to settle.

The respondent's persistence in seeking compensatory support was deemed unreasonable.

Balancing the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including the respondent's limited ability to pay, the court ordered the respondent to pay $18,000 in costs to the applicant.

The applicant mother sought an interim order permitting her to relocate with the parties' 5-year-old daughter from Sarnia to Aurora for employment purposes.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought shared parenting time and joint decision-making responsibility.

The court found that the mother had met the burden of proving the relocation was in the child's best interests, noting the financial benefit to the family unit and the mother's inability to find suitable employment in Sarnia.

The court granted the interim relocation, awarded the mother decision-making responsibility for education and extracurricular activities, ordered joint decision-making for health and religion, and set out a parenting schedule for the father.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an interim order to relocate with the parties' four-year-old child to Burnaby, British Columbia, and for primary care.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought a 50/50 shared parenting arrangement in London, Ontario.

The parties, both physicians, separated following an incident resulting in criminal charges against the father.

The mother sought to relocate for a lucrative employment opportunity in her medical specialty.

The court applied the relocation provisions of the Divorce Act and the test for interim mobility, finding that the mother had a compelling financial and career reason to move, and that she had been the primary caregiver.

The court granted the interim relocation and allocated primary care and decision-making responsibility to the mother, with specified parenting time for the father.

The applicant brought a motion to find the respondent mother in contempt for failing to comply with a prior court order requiring their two teenage daughters to return to in-person schooling.

The respondent admitted non-compliance, citing the children's refusal and her own beliefs aligned with a religious organization during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Bouchard v. Sgovio, the court declined to make an immediate contempt finding, instead utilizing its broad enforcement powers under Family Law Rule 1(8) to order the respondent to take specific steps to enroll the children for the upcoming school year.

The contempt motion was adjourned to monitor compliance.

The applicant mother commenced family law proceedings in Ontario less than one year after the parties moved from Germany.

The respondent father challenged the court's jurisdiction.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction to grant a divorce under the Divorce Act because the one-year residency requirement was not met at the time of issuance.

However, the court granted the mother leave to amend her application to claim decision-making responsibility, child support, spousal support, and property division under provincial legislation (CLRA and FLA), finding a real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The court dismissed the father's forum non conveniens argument, holding that Ontario was the appropriate forum.

On the mother's cross-motion for interim support, the court imputed income to the father on a graduated basis up to $180,000, finding him intentionally underemployed, and ordered interim child and spousal support.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2009 consent child support order, seeking retroactive and ongoing child support.

The respondent father had failed to disclose his increasing income for over a decade, despite repeated requests.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's increased income and the cessation of his support obligations for two other children.

Applying the D.B.S. framework, the court held that the father's failure to disclose his income constituted blameworthy conduct, justifying a retroactive child support award back to 2010.

The father was ordered to pay $50,500.40 in arrears and ongoing support based on his 2020 income.

The moving party sought to terminate or reduce his spousal support obligations, arguing that the responding party had achieved economic self-sufficiency due to an increase in her employment income.

The court found that the responding party's increased income constituted a material change in circumstances.

However, considering the compensatory nature of the original support order and the economic hardship the responding party suffered from the marriage breakdown, the court declined to terminate support.

Instead, the court reduced the monthly spousal support amount retroactively and prospectively based on the parties' updated incomes.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 1978 divorce order to claim retroactive child support and post-secondary expenses from the estate of her deceased ex-husband, 41 years after the original order.

The respondent estate trustee brought a motion to dismiss the claim on a question of law.

The court held that under the Divorce Act, a support obligation ends upon the payor's death unless the order explicitly provides that it binds the estate.

Because the original order contained no such provision, it died with the payor and could not be retroactively varied post-death.

The applicant's motion to change was dismissed.