Julia McArthur

The respondent moved to quash the appellant's appeal from a May 21, 2024 trial judgment in family law proceedings.

The trial judge had found the appellant engaged in coercive and controlling behaviour, psychological abuse of the child, failure to honour support obligations, and efforts to alienate the child from the respondent.

The appellant failed to comply with a stay order requiring payment of support arrears within 30 days and continued to breach court orders regarding parenting time and support payments.

The Court of Appeal found this to be one of the clearest cases justifying quashing an appeal, citing the appellant's deliberate and unwavering breach of crystal-clear orders, substantial arrears, and pattern of vexatious and frivolous litigation.

This is a costs decision following an urgent motion concerning parenting time.

The father sought to modify parenting arrangements and brought an ex parte motion with serious allegations against the mother.

The mother was successful in the underlying motion and sought costs of $20,000.

The father argued the amount was disproportionate and proposed $5,000, citing financial hardship from supervised access costs and child support obligations.

The court found the father's conduct was aggressive, litigious, and hovered close to bad faith.

The father failed to attempt settlement before commencing litigation and made unverified serious allegations.

The court ordered the father to pay costs of $18,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable at $3,000 per month beginning September 1, 2025.

This decision addresses an urgent motion concerning parenting time for a 10-month-old child amidst serious allegations of family violence and mental health concerns.

The court carefully analyzed the evidence, including affidavits, text messages, audio recordings, and medical reports, applying the best interests test under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court emphasized the importance of an expansive approach to evidence in family law, especially in cases involving family violence, and ruled on the admissibility of contested evidence.

Ultimately, the court ordered supervised parenting time for the Father, citing concerns about his conduct, mental health, and the safety of the child and Mother, and declined to grant a without prejudice order.

The applicant sought an order for the sale of the matrimonial home, an interim disbursement or advance on equalization, preservation and non-depletion orders, and costs.

The court found that only the interim disbursement/advance issue was properly before the court, but issued an order for the sale of the matrimonial home by agreement.

The applicant did not meet the burden for an interim disbursement or advance.

The respondent was awarded partial costs.

The husband appealed a family law judgment made following an uncontested trial in which he did not participate due to his failure to comply with court orders regarding financial disclosure and pleadings.

The wife brought a motion to quash the appeal based on the husband's ongoing non-compliance with support and costs orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to quash, finding it more appropriate to hear the appeal on the merits.

However, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge did not err in proceeding with an uncontested trial given the husband's repeated breaches of court orders and failure to provide financial disclosure.

This is a costs judgment following a 19-day family law trial.

The court addressed outstanding issues of costs and the division of religious holidays.

The applicant mother was found to be substantially successful on all parenting and financial issues, while the respondent father was "unquestionably unsuccessful." The court found the father engaged in pervasive bad faith conduct, including disparaging the mother, interfering with her relationship with the child, misusing her private journals, spreading misinformation about her health, engaging in family violence, and making unfounded allegations against professionals.

Despite the bad faith finding, the court reduced the mother's requested costs for proportionality, awarding $240,000.

The court also ordered a specific division of religious holidays based on the mother's proposal, with minor adjustments to exchange times.

The parties separated after a short, traditional marriage.

The father assumed primary care of their young child and engaged in a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, including restricting the mother's parenting time, making unfounded allegations about her mental health, and psychologically abusing the child by involving him in the litigation.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary parenting time, spousal support, and equalization.

The court found the father to be an 'unfriendly parent' who engaged in family violence and could not be trusted with decision-making.

The court awarded the mother residual decision-making responsibility and ordered a transition to a shared parenting schedule, ultimately culminating in a 2-2-5 schedule.

The court also imputed income to the father, ordering him to pay retroactive and prospective child and spousal support, as well as an equalization payment of $124,542.43.

This family law trial addressed the enforceability of an alleged separation agreement, equalization of net family properties, post-separation adjustments, occupation rent, and the sale of two properties.

The court found no binding agreement existed, criticizing the husband's credibility and delay tactics.

The matrimonial home and a New York property were ordered to be sold.

The wife was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $187,677, while the husband was ordered to pay occupation rent of $3,500 per month from March 1, 2021, along with associated property expenses.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's order that increased the respondent father's parenting time to a 50/50 schedule.

The appeal raised issues including whether a material change in circumstances was required to vary a final order containing a review term, the admission of hearsay evidence, the amendment of pleadings at trial, and the consideration of the children's best interests.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that a review term in a final parenting order can negate the need for a material change in circumstances if properly justified and delimited.

The court also upheld the trial judge's findings on evidence, pleading amendments, and the children's best interests, and denied the appellant's motion to admit fresh evidence.

The Respondent, Andrew Lambden, brought a motion for an interim order requiring the Applicant, Yessica Pamela Cevallos, to pay $30,000 as security for costs of the litigation.

The court found that the Applicant habitually resides outside Ontario and has no assets in Ontario, satisfying the preliminary onus under Rule 24(13)(a) of the Family Law Rules.

The court expressed serious reservations about the merits of the Applicant's spousal support claim, specifically regarding whether the parties continuously cohabited in a conjugal relationship for the statutory three-year period, citing significant interruptions in their cohabitation and the nature of their financial arrangements.

The court also noted the Applicant's inconsistent financial disclosure and inappropriate threatening statements made to the Respondent.

Despite the Applicant's submission that the order would prevent her from continuing the proceeding, the court found she had the ability to raise funds.

The motion for security for costs was granted in the amount of $20,000.

The appellant sought to overturn a motion judge's finding that a settlement was reached in mediation and the subsequent granting of partial summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error or error in principle.

The appellate court agreed that substantial evidence supported the existence of a settlement agreement, despite the absence of written minutes, and upheld the appropriateness of partial summary judgment given the limited remaining issues.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Applicant Father sought decision-making responsibility for the parties' child's vaccinations.

The Respondent Mother opposed, arguing she was uniquely suited due to her chiropractic background and research, and raising concerns about the child's genetics and potential adverse reactions.

The court qualified the Applicant's medical experts (pediatrician/geneticist and pediatric infectious disease specialist) but rejected the Respondent's proposed experts due to lack of relevant expertise, novel science reliability issues, and bias.

The court found the child to be in good health with no contraindications to vaccination and determined the Applicant's approach of consulting medical professionals was in the child's best interest.

The Applicant Father was granted sole decision-making responsibility for all vaccinations, including the Covid-19 vaccine.

This is a costs endorsement following a come-back motion concerning ex parte injunctions.

The applicant successfully continued a Family Law Act preservation order against her former spouse but failed to continue a Mareva order against his family members and corporate affiliates.

The court determined costs based on divided success, reasonableness of conduct, and settlement offers, ultimately awarding the applicant costs against the former spouse and the other respondents costs against the applicant, with deferred payment terms for the applicant.

This is an appeal by a father from a trial order regarding child support, retroactive child support, a charging order, and costs.

The trial judge imputed income to the father due to his failure to disclose and efforts to conceal income, awarded retroactive support, and secured obligations with a charging order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the father's appeal, upholding the trial judge's imputation of income, the retroactive child support award (consistent with the new Colucci framework), and the charging order, finding no palpable and overriding errors or jurisdictional issues.

Leave to appeal the costs order was also denied, as the trial judge's discretion was properly exercised given the father's conduct.