Julie Stanchieri

The moving party sought review of a motion judge's order refusing an extension of time to file a notice of appeal in high-conflict family litigation.

The court applied the deferential standard under s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act and confirmed intervention is limited to legal error, error in principle, or an unreasonable result.

It held the motion judge applied the correct legal framework, including the best interests of the children as the overarching consideration.

The court found no error in assessing the proposed appeal's limited merit, the five-month delay, and prejudice from continued uncertainty in parenting arrangements.

The review motion was dismissed with costs.

This decision resolves a high-conflict family law dispute between Harry James Clarke and Melissa Joy Denyes regarding parenting time, decision-making, relocation, child support, section 7 expenses, spousal support, and post-separation adjustments for their two children, one of whom has special needs.

The court dismisses the respondent's request to relocate with the children to Nova Scotia, orders equal parenting time on a 2-2-5-5 schedule, and grants the applicant sole decision-making responsibility.

Child support is set based on the parties' incomes, and section 7 expenses are to be shared equally.

The respondent's claims for spousal support and post-separation adjustments are dismissed, while the applicant is awarded certain retroactive section 7 expenses and post-separation adjustments.

The court imposes additional compliance measures due to the respondent's litigation conduct.

This motion addresses a dispute between unmarried parents regarding parenting time, a s.30 parenting assessment, and s.7 special expenses for their two children, one of whom has significant special needs (autism, intellectual disability, ADHD).

The applicant father sought to increase his parenting time, obtain a s.30 assessment, and establish ancillary parenting orders.

The respondent mother opposed these changes and sought reimbursement for past s.7 expenses and prepayment for future ones.

The court found a material change in circumstances, increased the father's temporary parenting time, ordered a s.30 assessment (to be paid by the father), and granted several ancillary parenting orders.

The court also ordered reconciliation of past s.7 expenses, disallowing some of the mother's claims, and dismissed her request for prepayment of future s.7 expenses, establishing a consent-based mechanism instead.

The applicant, Vanessa Shea, sought primary care and sole decision-making for her 12-year-old daughter, Roxanna, following the sudden death of the child's father, Robin Shea.

The child had been estranged from the applicant since 2019 and was in the care of her paternal aunts.

Miriam Shea, one of the paternal aunts, brought a cross-motion to be added as a party and for temporary primary residence and decision-making authority.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding her unsuitable as a primary caregiver due to her lack of insight into the child's needs and her inability to prioritize the child's interests over her own.

The court granted the cross-motion, ordering Roxanna to reside with Miriam Shea, who was found to be a suitable and supportive caregiver, and to have day-to-day decision-making authority.

The court also declined to order immediate intensive reunification therapy, prioritizing the child's individual healing from grief.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding the parenting schedule, child support, and section 7 expenses for their two children.

The respondent father sought a week-about shared parenting schedule, while the applicant mother sought to maintain the status quo.

The court found that a week-about schedule was not in the children's best interests pending trial, but granted the father one additional overnight visit.

Child support was ordered on a set-off basis in accordance with the Guidelines.

The court also resolved minor disputes regarding extracurricular activities and sports equipment.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent mother brought a motion seeking extensive financial disclosure from the applicant father to calculate his income for child support purposes.

The father, who had recently started his own law firm, argued the requests were disproportionate and premature.

The court emphasized the importance of timely income disclosure but agreed that some of the mother's requests were overreaching.

The court granted a temporary order requiring the father to provide a narrowed scope of disclosure, balancing the need for financial transparency with the principle of proportionality.

The applicant father brought a motion for a temporary parenting schedule pending a section 30 custody and access assessment, seeking primary residence (8 out of 14 nights).

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking primary residence with the father having only 16.5 hours of access per week and no overnights.

The parties continued to reside separate and apart in the matrimonial home, creating a toxic environment.

The court reviewed extensive affidavit evidence and text messages, finding both parents were actively involved in caring for the children, including one child with autism spectrum disorder.

The court gave little weight to surreptitious video recordings taken by the maternal grandparents.

Ultimately, the court ordered a temporary 50/50 equal time-sharing nesting arrangement where the children remain in the matrimonial home and the parents rotate in and out.

The applicant sought to set aside a binding agreement in principle regarding the transfer and sale of franchised restaurants, claiming lack of disclosure and frustration of contract due to the franchisor's requirements.

The applicant also sought interim spousal and child support.

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the application.

The court found that the applicant had access to competent legal and financial advice during negotiations and that there was no significant lack of disclosure.

The court also held that the franchisor's requirements did not frustrate the contract.

Applying the Miglin framework, the court found the agreement remained consistent with the objectives of the Divorce Act.

The court granted the respondent's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed from a trial judge's order awarding sole custody of the parties' daughter to the respondent in Nova Scotia and adjusting the respondent's contribution to certain section 7 expenses.

The trial judge had heard evidence over three phases spanning more than two years.

While the respondent sought custody of both children, the trial judge found it was in the daughter's best interests to reside with the respondent in Nova Scotia, considering factors including the presence of both sets of grandparents in Nova Scotia, the daughter's wishes, the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendation, and the appellant's greater engagement with the son's hockey career.

The appellant also sought to admit fresh evidence regarding post-judgment access problems and non-payment of support.

This trial addressed several family law issues following a separation, including equalization of net family property, child support (lump sum and ongoing s. 7 expenses), and interest on a pension division.

The court dismissed the applicant's claimed date-of-separation debts for lack of proof, increasing his equalization payment obligation to the respondent.

The respondent's request for a lump sum payment for future child support and s. 7 expenses beyond what the applicant agreed to was denied, as the court found no real risk of non-payment.

The applicant's claim for interest on his share of the respondent's pension was dismissed, as it was not provided for in a prior consent order.

Trust proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home were ordered to be held until costs were determined.

Following the death of the mother of his children, the applicant father sought custody and primary residence of his children who had been residing with their maternal grandparents for approximately ten years.

The father brought an emergency motion for custody prior to a case conference.

The maternal grandparents defended and cross-claimed for joint custody with the maternal aunt and uncle.

The maternal aunt and uncle were added as parties.

The father was unsuccessful in securing any substantive relief.

The matter proceeded to summary judgment, which the respondents won substantially.

This decision addresses the costs award arising from the motions and summary judgment proceedings.

A motion for summary judgment regarding custody and access of two children whose mother died.

The maternal grandparents and maternal uncle and aunt sought joint custody with limited access for the biological father.

The father opposed the motion and sought sole custody with the children relocating to Ottawa.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the respondents, finding that the unchallenged evidence established no genuine issue requiring trial.

The children had resided with the maternal grandparents for ten years in a stable environment.

The father had minimal involvement post-separation, failed to pay child support, and presented an unstructured care plan.

The children's preferences were to remain in Oakville with their maternal family.

Joint custody was awarded to the grandparents and uncle/aunt with limited monthly access for the father.

In the context of an ongoing family law arbitration, the respondent wife brought a motion for third-party document production against the applicant husband's business partner and related corporations.

The documents were sought to assess the soft costs of a real estate development project for equalization purposes.

The third party opposed the motion, alleging the wife breached the implied undertaking rule by tipping off the CRA, which led to an audit.

The court found no satisfactory evidence to justify the third party's sudden withdrawal of cooperation and granted the motion for document production pursuant to Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules.

This is a costs decision arising from a motion to reinstate the respondent father's pleadings on financial issues in a family law application.

The father's pleadings had been struck for non-compliance with a disclosure order.

After the father substantially complied with the disclosure order, he brought a motion to reinstate his pleadings.

The court granted the motion, finding that the father had made more than token efforts to comply and that justice required the matter to proceed to trial on the merits.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and refused to consent to reinstatement despite the father's repeated requests and offers to settle.

The court found the mother acted unreasonably in refusing to consent and awarded costs to the father.

The respondent father brought a motion to reinstate his pleadings on financial issues after they were struck for non-compliance with a disclosure order.

The applicant mother opposed reinstatement, arguing the father remained in non-compliance with both the disclosure order and child support obligations.

The court granted the motion, finding that while the father's disclosure had not been perfect, his efforts to comply after the initial striking order were more than token attempts.

The court determined that justice would be best served by allowing the father to participate at trial on the merits, consistent with the principle that adversarial proceedings should be maintained whenever possible.

The applicant wife brought an emergency, ex parte motion for a preservation order over the respondent husband's assets, primarily his recently commuted pension.

The husband had failed to disclose the details of his retirement package and the transfer of pension funds.

The court found the urgency threshold was met due to the husband's lack of transparency, but held the requested order over all assets was disproportionate.

The court granted a partial preservation order over two GICs and the matrimonial home.

No costs were awarded to the applicant because her counsel failed to give notice of the motion to the husband's active counsel.