Julie J. Gravelle

Appeal of a summary judgment motion decision in a family law matter.

The respondent sought equalization of net family property and rejected the appellant's claims for spousal support and unequal division of family property.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims regarding the value of family assets, alleged misappropriation of funds, and spousal support entitlement.

The court also rejected the appellant's late request to file an additional notice of appeal regarding costs.

This is a costs decision following an interim parenting order motion.

The court previously granted an interim parenting arrangement providing the applicant father with weekend and mid-week parenting time.

The respondent mother sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the applicant sought no costs or alternatively costs in his favour.

The court found that neither party was successful on the motion, as neither proposed parenting schedule was adopted.

The court determined that success was divided due to the respondent's unreasonable and vacillating positions throughout the motion and the applicant's unsuccessful position stemming from family violence concerns involving his parents.

Accordingly, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The decision addresses an interim parenting motion involving allegations of family violence, including by the applicant’s parents against the respondent.

The court considers the impact of family violence by non-litigants and the best interests of the child, ultimately granting the applicant father parenting time every weekend and Wednesday evening.

The court condemns coercive control and family violence by extended family members and emphasizes the need for a child-focused, fact-specific approach to parenting orders.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard two motions: the appellant's request for an extension to perfect his appeal of a May 2024 judgment and leave to appeal a July 2020 order, and the respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance.

The Court granted the appellant an extension to perfect his appeal, citing his recent hospitalization and administrative delays in the Superior Court.

However, the appellant's motion for leave to appeal the 2020 order was dismissed due to significant delay, lack of coherent explanation, and low likelihood of success, as the order was made by consent.

The respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal was adjourned.

The respondent brought a motion for security for costs and other relief, which the applicant sought to dismiss.

The court reviewed the factors under Family Law Rule 24(13), noting the applicant resides outside Ontario.

However, the court found no clear evidence that the applicant's underlying application was a nuisance or that the applicant lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs, especially given consistent enforcement of existing orders by the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) and Nova Scotia Maintenance Enforcement Program (MEP).

The motion for security for costs was dismissed, and the applicant was awarded costs of the motion.

This is a costs decision following a successful summary judgment motion brought by the applicant wife.

The court awarded the applicant $9,000 in costs, finding her fully successful on the underlying motion, which resulted in an equalization payment in her favour and the dismissal of the respondent husband's claims for spousal support and unequal division of Net Family Property.

The court considered the respondent's self-represented status, his lack of understanding of legal procedure and principles, and his chronic failure to provide disclosure, noting that self-represented parties are not exempt from cost awards.

The applicant's prior formal offers to settle, which closely matched the final outcome, further supported the cost award.

The applicant father sought to retroactively adjust child support due to a material change in circumstances, specifically his income decrease due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the respondent mother's increased income and failure to provide financial disclosure.

The respondent mother failed to file responding materials and did not attend the case conference or the uncontested trial.

The court found that the grounds for an uncontested trial were established, granted the father's request for retroactive adjustment of child support from January 1, 2018, and ordered the mother to pay costs.

The applicant, Pauline Gay, sought costs after successfully obtaining a more favourable order than her settlement offer.

The court found that while the applicant's offer did not meet the formal requirements of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules for full indemnity costs, it could still be considered in determining costs.

The respondent's conduct during litigation, including lack of candour and credibility, and failure to file a detailed bill of costs, was also considered.

The court awarded the applicant fixed costs of $25,000, payable immediately.

The applicant sought a divorce, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the respondent's evidence regarding alleged debts to third parties and the value of pottery retained by the applicant to be not credible, excluding them from the equalization calculation.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $74,804.80, child support arrears of $15,288, and adjustments for a joint line of credit.

A divorce order was granted.

The applicant mother brought an interim motion for an order allowing her to relocate to Montreal with the parties' two children.

Prior to the motion being heard, the mother unilaterally moved to Montreal with the children without the respondent father's consent.

The court applied the principles for interim mobility and found that the mother had not met her burden of showing that the move was in the children's best interests at this stage.

The court noted conflicting evidence regarding the father's conduct and the children's well-being, concluding that a full trial was necessary to resolve the issues.

The motion was dismissed, and the mother was ordered to return the children to Ottawa pending trial.

This decision addresses the costs of a motion brought by the Applicant wife for financial disclosure, interim spousal, and child support.

While many issues were resolved by consent on the motion day, the court made interim orders for spousal and child support and ordered further disclosure.

The Applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, citing the Respondent's late financial disclosure.

The Respondent sought full costs, arguing his offers to settle were comparable to the outcome.

The court found mixed success on disclosure, acknowledging the Applicant's reasonable pursuit, but noted the Respondent's support offers were close to the ordered amounts.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered the Applicant to pay the Respondent fixed costs of $9,215.83, inclusive of HST, considering the offers to settle and the timing of concessions.

The moving party sought an order permitting her to obtain a passport for the parties’ young child and to travel with the child to Algeria without the other parent’s consent.

The responding parent opposed the travel request due to security concerns arising from Canadian travel advisories and the fact that Algeria is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The court balanced the benefits of the child maintaining contact with extended family against the risks associated with travel and the possibility of non‑return.

The court concluded that the risks outweighed the benefits for the proposed trip.

The passport request was granted, but the request to travel with the child to Algeria was denied.

Following a motion regarding parenting time for an infant child, the court determined costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The moving party father had sought a rapid progression to a 50/50 access schedule, while the responding mother sought a gradual increase in parenting time.

The court found the mother was largely successful on the motion because the ordered access schedule closely resembled her proposal.

Considering the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct, the complexity of the matter, and proportionality, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful party.

Following a seven‑day family law trial concerning custody, relocation, child support, and access, both parties sought full recovery costs.

The court found that success at trial was clearly divided: the applicant obtained sole custody, income imputation, and child support, but failed on her late‑raised request to relocate the child to Nova Scotia, while the respondent succeeded in maintaining the child’s residence in Ontario and obtaining a graduated access regime but failed on other financial and custody claims.

The court also found litigation misconduct by the respondent, including failure to pay child support despite sufficient income and inadequate financial disclosure.

However, the applicant’s late and inadequately supported mobility claim was central to the trial and undermined her entitlement to costs.

Balancing the divided success and litigation conduct, the court declined to award costs to either party.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, permission to relocate to Nova Scotia with the parties' two-year-old child, and child support.

The respondent father sought joint custody, opposed the relocation, requested increased access, and claimed undue hardship regarding child support.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding a lack of cooperation and trust between the parents.

The relocation request was denied as the mother's plan was hastily formed and lacked concrete employment prospects, while the child's relationship with the father needed to be facilitated in Ottawa.

The court ordered a graduated access schedule for the father, imputed income to him for child support purposes, and dismissed his claim for undue hardship.

Following a motion to vary a prior family law order, the responding party sought costs after partially succeeding in terminating child support but failing to vary spousal support.

The opposing party argued that no costs should be awarded because the offer to settle was not clearly bettered.

The court held that the written offer to settle should have been taken seriously and that it was better than the ultimate order with respect to the child support issue.

Although success was mixed, the court exercised its discretion to award modest costs.

Costs were fixed at $1,000.

The moving party father brought a motion to vary a 2006 order to terminate his child and spousal support obligations following his job loss.

The court found that the 23-year-old daughter was no longer a child of the marriage as she was independent and had withdrawn from parental care, terminating child support.

However, the court dismissed the motion to vary spousal support as premature, noting the father's severance package and the lack of financial disclosure from both parties, requiring a better evidentiary record.

The applicant father was successful in an emergency motion regarding the parties' son's residence after the respondent mother unilaterally withheld the child.

The applicant sought $9,000 in costs on a full recovery basis.

The respondent argued she was unable to pay due to being on Ontario Works and having a medical condition.

The court awarded nominal costs of $150 to the applicant, considering the respondent's financial circumstances and the ongoing changes to the child's residence.