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.

Following an interim parenting motion where neither party's proposed schedule was adopted, the court was required to determine costs.

The respondent sought $1,899.04 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the applicant sought $4,500 on a partial indemnity basis or no costs.

The court found that success was divided, as the applicant was forced to bring the motion due to the respondent's unilateral behaviour, but the applicant's proposed schedule was rejected due to family violence concerns.

Given the divided success and the conduct of both parties, the court ordered that each party bear their own 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 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.

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.

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.

In a family trial, the court decided an evidentiary application concerning a young child's out-of-court statements alleging physical discipline and expressing discomfort with the applicant's conduct.

Applying the principled hearsay approach from Khan, the court held necessity was established and found threshold reliability for certain statements based on spontaneity, surrounding circumstances, and corroboration from third-party evidence.

A secretly made audio recording of the child was excluded because its poor quality and the systemic prejudice associated with surreptitious recordings in family litigation outweighed its slight probative value.

The child's statements about being slapped and about disliking kisses because the applicant's mouth was not clean were admitted.

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 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.