Julie Gravelle

The applicant wife brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a divorce, equalization of net family property, and costs.

The respondent husband sought spousal support and an unequal division of net family property.

The court found summary judgment appropriate due to the husband's chronic failure to provide financial disclosure over the eight-year litigation.

The court ordered the husband to pay an equalization payment of $46,180, plus an outstanding $8,500 from a previous order.

The husband's claims for an unequal division of property and spousal support were dismissed due to lack of evidence and failure to establish entitlement.

Following an uncontested trial, the court determined retroactive and ongoing child support for parties with a shared parenting arrangement.

The respondent mother failed to provide timely financial disclosure and admitted to being untruthful about her employment.

The court imputed the mother's income at $35,000 based on full-time minimum wage work.

Retroactive child support was adjusted for 2018-2021, resulting in an overpayment credit for the applicant father.

Ongoing support for 2022 onwards was set off to zero due to the parties' comparable incomes.

Following a decision staying the applicant's application pending payment of arrears, the court determined the issue of costs.

The respondent was successful in obtaining the stay and was presumptively entitled to costs.

However, because success was divided on the issues raised during the motion, the court apportioned costs and ordered the applicant to pay $4,500 to the respondent.

The respondent mother brought a motion to stay the applicant father's divorce and parenting application until he paid outstanding costs orders and transferred funds from his RRSP to satisfy child support arrears, as required by a 2014 court order.

The court found that while the father had complied with the monthly payment order, he had failed to obey the order requiring him to apply RRSP withdrawals to his arrears, having used the 2015 and 2016 withdrawals for his own purposes.

Applying Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court granted the motion and stayed the father's application pending his payment of $18,092.11, representing the RRSP funds he failed to transfer.

The parties, who separated shortly before their child's birth, resolved most decision-making issues but disputed the father's parenting time.

The father sought to increase his parenting time from five out of 14 days to seven out of 14 days on a 2-2-3 schedule, while the mother sought to maintain the status quo.

The court found that both parents were loving and capable, and that maximizing contact with both parents was in the child's best interests.

The court ordered a graduated increase in the father's parenting time, culminating in a 2-2-3 shared parenting schedule by September 2022, and directed that exchanges transition away from the police station to the child's school or the parents' residences.

The moving party sought costs of $17,317.60 on a full recovery basis following a successful summary judgment motion regarding the matrimonial home.

The responding party argued the parties should bear their own costs as the moving party did not obtain the exact order requested.

The court found the moving party was substantially successful and presumptively entitled to costs.

However, as the moving party failed to provide the complete offer to settle, the court could not determine if the costs consequences of Rule 18(14) were triggered.

The court awarded the moving party partial indemnity costs fixed at $9,000.

The applicant father brought a motion for a temporary parenting schedule and the appointment of a parenting capacity assessor pending trial.

The respondent mother consented to the appointment of the assessor but proposed a more restrictive parenting schedule.

The court ordered the appointment of the agreed-upon assessor with costs shared equally.

Finding no evidence of risk to the child and emphasizing the need to foster the father-child relationship, the court expanded the applicant's parenting time and assumed case management of the proceeding.

The parties, engaged in high conflict litigation over parenting time, consented to a temporary order appointing a parenting coordinator.

The parenting coordinator subsequently issued two interim awards that increased the applicant's parenting time and ordered the appointment of a custody assessor.

The respondent sought to terminate the parenting coordination process and set aside the awards, while the applicant sought to enforce them.

The court found that the parenting coordinator exceeded her jurisdiction by making significant changes to the residential schedule without a mediation/arbitration agreement.

The court set aside the awards, terminated the parenting coordination process, and directed the parties to file written submissions for a temporary parenting schedule.

The respondent father brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that the matrimonial home, registered solely in the applicant mother's name, was held in trust for both of them, and an order for its sale.

The paternal grandmother, who had advanced funds for the home's purchase, supported the motion and abandoned her proprietary claim, seeking only repayment.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding ownership, concluding the father had an equal beneficial interest based on unjust enrichment.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home within 45 days, with $500,000 of the proceeds to be held in trust pending resolution of the grandmother's civil action and other financial issues.

The parties in a family law matter submitted costs submissions several months after the extended deadline ordered by the court, without providing any explanation for the delay.

The judge, who was in his final sitting week before retirement and had already disposed of his notes, refused to consider the late submissions.

The judge directed counsel to take the matter up with the Local Administrative Judge for Family or the Regional Senior Judge if they wished to pursue it further.

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking retroactive child support and modifications to the parenting plan.

The parties settled most issues but left the determination of child support for 2015-2016 and costs to the court.

The applicant had taken a five-month unpaid leave of absence in 2015 to care for her ill father and husband, resulting in a significant drop in her income.

The court applied the Drygala test and found the applicant was intentionally under-employed, as her leave was not due to her own health or the needs of a dependent child.

The court imputed an income of $85,000 to the applicant and calculated the set-off child support amount, resulting in $72 in arrears owed by the respondent.

The court also awarded $4,500 in costs to the respondent due to the applicant's unreasonable conduct and disproportionate litigation approach.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a 2006 order to seek sole custody of his two sons, alleging severe parental alienation by the respondent mother.

The mother brought a cross-motion for joint custody and a new psychological evaluation.

The court accepted the psychological evaluation finding severe parental alienation by the mother, who had fostered an unhealthy dependence and involved the children in the litigation.

To repair the father-son relationship, the court awarded the father temporary sole custody with a period of no contact for the mother, followed by supervised access, and eventually transitioning to a shared week-about joint custody arrangement.

The mother's requests for a new evaluation and appointment of children's counsel were dismissed.