Julie A. Layne

This appeal concerned the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a trial judge's order dismissing a contempt motion and ordering therapy and counselling.

The Court determined that the dismissal of the contempt motion was an interlocutory order, as the appellant had other avenues for relief.

The order for therapy and counselling was a final order made under the Children's Law Reform Act, which properly lies with the Divisional Court.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction over both components of the appeal.

The respondent's motion to quash the appeal was granted, and the appeal was transferred to the Divisional Court.

This endorsement addresses a case conference and a motion regarding temporary parenting arrangements for the parties' two-year-old daughter following their separation.

After a case conference on May 15, 2020, failed to yield a consensus, the court determined that the father's request to proceed with a motion for temporary parenting arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a 'pressing matter.' The court provided detailed procedural directions for the conduct of the motion, including timelines for material service, affidavit page limitations, and argument time.

This endorsement from a case conference addressed outstanding issues of child support and disclosure.

The court provided directions for the respondent to address corporate financial disclosure, including potentially engaging an accountant, and for personal disclosure to be exchanged.

The parties were encouraged to reach consent on disclosure timelines and support proposals, with the court prepared to issue a procedural order if no agreement was reached.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support.

The parties disputed the separation date, the applicant's employment status (fired vs. quit), and the respondent's true income.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie case for entitlement, noting her financial disadvantage post-separation and the prior "homemade" interim support arrangement.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on corporate expenses and benefits, finding his reported salary did not reflect his true financial benefit.

Interim spousal support was ordered for the applicant.

The applicant sought interim child support for an adult child (S.H., age 24) with mental and physical health issues, ongoing university costs, counselling costs, and interim disbursements for legal and expert fees.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking a psychological assessment of S.H., disclosure, and an order to file cryptocurrency investment documents under seal or partially redacted due to security risks.

The court found S.H. was entitled to interim child support and some post-secondary education expenses.

It granted reduced interim disbursements to the applicant for legal and expert fees, to be treated as a loan.

The respondent's request for a psychological assessment of S.H. was adjourned to allow S.H. to obtain independent legal advice, and the request for cryptocurrency redaction was granted due to security concerns.

The applicant mother brought a motion to transfer the parties' two children to a new school closer to her temporary residence.

The parties shared joint custody and equal residency.

The court found that the mother had not established a permanent residence and that the proposed school change was inextricably tied to mobility issues.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, holding that it was premature to change the children's school before the mother established a permanent home, and that maintaining the current arrangement would minimize disruption and maximize contact with both parents.

The father brought a motion regarding the residence and schooling of the parties' daughter, which was subsequently settled.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The mother sought full indemnity costs, arguing the settlement mirrored her early offers and the status quo.

The father sought partial recovery costs, claiming his motion was necessary due to the mother's "self-help" actions and that the settlement reflected his offers.

The court, acknowledging the difficulty in determining success in settled cases, found that the final settlement left the parties in the same position as before the father's motion.

The court awarded the mother partial recovery costs of $8,500, finding her counsel's billed hours excessive but recognizing the father's motion had no substantive effect on the children's arrangements.

The applicant spouse sought an order restraining the respondent from withdrawing or transferring funds from his OMERS pension pending the disposition of her appeal concerning post‑retirement spousal support.

She relied on s. 40 of the Family Law Act and alternatively sought injunctive relief under the Rules of Civil Procedure to prevent depletion of the pension.

The court held that the appropriate forum for interim relief pending an appeal was the Court of Appeal under s. 134 of the Courts of Justice Act.

It also found the motion procedurally flawed and concluded that s. 40 of the Family Law Act was unavailable because the spousal support order was made under the Divorce Act.

In any event, the evidentiary record did not establish irreparable harm required for injunctive relief.