Julie Evelyn Amourgis

The respondent mother brought a motion to strike the applicant father's family law application pursuant to Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules for failure to comply with orders for child support and costs totalling $31,606.50.

The court applied the three-part test from Van v. Palombi and found triggering events were established given the father's complete failure to make voluntary child support payments and non-compliance with multiple costs orders.

Rather than striking the application outright, the court imposed a conditional order requiring payment of $35,106.50 (including costs of the motion) by a specified date, failing which the application would be struck and the matter would proceed on an uncontested basis.

The moving party (former wife) brought a motion for contempt against the responding party (former husband) for failing to secure his equalization and spousal support obligations via life insurance and his pension, as ordered in 1998 and 2000.

The responding party argued the equalization obligation was extinguished by his 2000 assignment in bankruptcy.

The court found that because the responding party failed to comply with his conditional discharge order and the trustee was discharged in 2005, the bankruptcy stay was lifted and the equalization obligation remained enforceable.

Applying the three-part test for civil contempt, the court found the responding party intentionally breached clear and unequivocal court orders and declared him in contempt, ordering him to secure the obligations within 30 days to purge the contempt prior to a sentencing hearing.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a previous parenting order to permit her to relocate with the parties' nine-year-old autistic son from London, Ontario to Moncton, New Brunswick.

The mother argued the move was necessary due to better French-language autism therapy programs and employment prospects in New Brunswick.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the mother's inability to secure employment in Ontario and uncertainty regarding autism funding.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court granted the relocation, finding the mother's plan was child-centered and would better meet the child's needs, while ordering adjusted parenting time and travel cost arrangements for the respondent father.

The respondent wife brought a motion for temporary spousal support.

The parties were married in India and the applicant husband sponsored the wife to come to Canada, signing a three-year Sponsorship Agreement.

They separated after 14 months of marriage.

The wife was receiving social assistance and retraining as a pharmacy technician.

The court departed from the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines due to the short marriage and the Sponsorship Agreement, conducting a means and needs analysis.

The husband was ordered to pay $1,000 per month in temporary spousal support until June 2022, and $2,500 in costs.

The moving party brought an urgent motion to change final orders regarding child support and access.

The court dismissed the motion because the moving party failed to demonstrate genuine settlement efforts, failed to disclose a prior dismissal and unpaid costs order, and repeatedly failed to follow the Family Law Rules by using a Form 14 instead of a Motion to Change.

The moving party was ordered to pay $2,000 in costs and barred from bringing further motions until all costs are paid.

The respondent (mother) sought costs of $18,109.39 arising from her motion to change a final parenting order.

The applicant (father) requested nominal costs or payment at $50 per month.

The court found the mother was the successful party, having obtained an order for supervised access after the father failed to file a response to the motion to change, failed to attend at Assignment Court and a settlement conference, and failed to pay prior costs orders.

The court awarded costs of $6,500 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, taking into account the father's limited financial means and his unreasonable conduct throughout the litigation.

The respondent father moved to set aside a default judgment obtained after an uncontested trial, arguing he was unaware of the proceedings and had an arguable defense regarding a joint family venture and imputed income for child support.

The court found the father moved promptly, provided a plausible explanation for non-participation due to lack of notice, and demonstrated arguable defenses.

The court set aside the default judgment and associated costs, dismissing the applicant's cross-motion to compel compliance with the original order.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to set aside their noting in default and a default judgment under Rule 19.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court determined the issue of costs.

Although the defendants had been successful on the motion, the court declined to award costs.

The court noted the defendants required an indulgence due to their default and had delayed significantly in bringing the motion.

The plaintiff’s opposition to the motion was found to be reasonable in the circumstances, particularly given the defendants’ prolonged inaction.

The court concluded that fairness required no order as to costs.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 19.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a noting in default and default judgment arising from an action for repayment of a loan.

The court considered the factors articulated by the Court of Appeal governing motions to set aside default judgments, including promptness of the motion, explanation for the default, existence of an arguable defence, prejudice, and the integrity of the administration of justice.

Although the court found the motion was not brought promptly and one defendant failed to provide an explanation for the default, the defendants established an arguable defence on the merits regarding repayment of the loan.

The court concluded that the interests of justice favoured setting aside the default judgment, particularly given the lack of prejudice to the plaintiff and funds being held in trust sufficient to satisfy any eventual judgment.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order permitting the plaintiff to amend a statement of claim to add them as defendants after the expiration of the limitation period.

The court considered whether there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge’s decision and whether the issue raised matters of sufficient importance under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the plaintiff provided no evidence demonstrating reasonable diligence in identifying the proposed defendants prior to the expiry of the limitation period and no evidence of special circumstances justifying the amendment.

As a result, there was reason to doubt the correctness of the underlying order and the issue raised broader questions concerning limitation periods and amendments to pleadings.

Leave to appeal to the Divisional Court was granted.

The appellant appealed orders granting possession of a property to a company controlled by the respondent and refusing to set aside the possession order.

The appellant had signed an agreement to make monthly payments for occupancy but defaulted, making no payments since October 2007.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had independent legal advice, took the benefit of the agreement without honouring his obligations, and that his claims of duress and procedural irregularities were unfounded.

The mother sought leave to appeal an interim order that transferred the primary residence of the child to the father.

The motion judge had relied heavily on a report from the Office of the Children's Lawyer, which raised serious concerns about the mother's mental health, specifically her schizophrenia and medication non-compliance.

The mother argued that the motion judge erred in relying on the untested report to change the status quo prior to trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the interim decision and noting that the case was fact-driven and did not raise matters of public importance warranting appellate review.

The husband sought leave to appeal an interim spousal support order of $750 per month, arguing he could not work for medical reasons and relying on a modest disability income.

The motions judge had imputed income to him based on his past earnings and set an early trial date.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the interim order and noting that the issue was not of general public importance as required by Rule 62.02(4)(b).

The appellant appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no reviewable error on the evidence before the trial judge and dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $2,000.

The appellant appealed the order of the motion judge striking out his pleading and granting a divorce judgment and related relief.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge properly struck the pleading based on the appellant's non-compliance with previous court orders.

The Court also found no palpable and overriding error in the granting of the divorce judgment and related relief.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $3,000.