Karen Rosalee Caroline Cunningham

This decision addresses a high-conflict family law dispute involving allegations of intimate partner violence (IPV), child and spousal support, parenting time, and property division.

The court found a pattern of psychological, sexual, physical, and financial abuse by the father, and adopted a restorative approach to parenting orders, emphasizing the children's best interests, stability, and the need for therapeutic interventions.

The mother was granted sole decision-making authority (except for extracurriculars), and the father was ordered to pay retroactive and ongoing support.

The decision provides a detailed analysis of the impact of IPV on family dynamics and the application of restorative justice principles in family law.

The court addressed motions concerning parenting arrangements for a young child, following the mother's unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse by the father's older children and concerns about the mother's repeated, intrusive physical examinations of the child.

Finding no evidence of abuse and concluding the mother's actions were harmful, the court transferred primary care to the father.

The mother's parenting time was ordered to be supervised, with prohibitions on her direct involvement in the child's personal care and from denigrating the father or his children.

The appellant father appealed a trial judge's decision dismissing his application to review and change child support obligations under minutes of settlement.

The trial judge, unable to determine the parties' incomes, had ordered the continuation of the original $725 monthly payment.

The Divisional Court found this was an error of law and a palpable and overriding error of fact, as a review requires de novo findings of income and an assessment of the equal parenting time under s. 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The appeal was allowed in part and a new trial was ordered.

Following a motion for unsupervised and increased access where the applicant father was largely successful, he sought costs of $15,000.

The respondent mother opposed, citing divided success and inability to pay.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party but reduced the requested amount due to proportionality, unreasonable time docketed, and the respondent's financial circumstances.

The respondent was ordered to pay $7,500 in costs for the motion, with no costs awarded for the mandatory case conference.

This costs endorsement followed cross-motions where the respondent successfully obtained summary judgment dismissing the applicant's claim to set aside a final order, while the applicant was permitted to proceed with a motion to change child support.

The court found the respondent to be more successful on the dominant issue of upholding the final order.

Considering the respondent's formal offer to settle, which was more advantageous than the motion's outcome, and the reasonableness of the parties' conduct, the court awarded the respondent costs.

The court also considered the financial circumstances of both parties, noting the applicant's responsibility for unsuccessfully attempting to set aside a consented final order.

Costs were fixed at $9,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable monthly.

An application under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act by a California resident seeking initial child support and medical coverage for his son from the respondent residing in Ontario.

The child has Autism Spectrum Disorder and resides primarily with the applicant in California, with summer access to the respondent in Canada.

The court determined child support based on the respondent's income and established Section 7 extraordinary expenses for medical and related costs, while offsetting airline ticket expenses incurred by the respondent for the child's access visits.

The applicant brought a motion to change a final order regarding custody and access.

The parties settled most issues, leaving the location of access exchanges and a proposed cap on section 7 expenses for the court to decide.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to escalating conflict and a peace bond against the respondent, ordering that access exchanges occur at a neutral location.

The court declined to cap the respondent's section 7 expenses, finding existing consent requirements provided sufficient protection.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal in a family law matter concerning spousal support.

The respondent wife sought full recovery costs of $38,642.47, while the appellant husband sought partial costs of $16,264.29.

The Court of Appeal found that the respondent was largely successful on the contested issues on appeal, particularly in resisting the appellant's argument that the application judge erred in awarding spousal support.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondent.

The appellant husband appealed a lump sum spousal support award of $143,280 (adjusted for tax) granted to the respondent wife following a 22-year marriage.

The husband challenged the award on two grounds: (1) that compensatory support was inappropriate because the wife's career prospects were not diminished by the marriage, and (2) that the application judge failed to account for the impact of their adult son residing with the husband when calculating the support amount.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge properly considered both economic disadvantage flowing from the marriage and from its breakdown.

The court upheld the compensatory support award but varied the order to properly adjust the lump sum amount for tax consequences, reducing it to $106,539.52 ($14,840.32 retroactive plus $91,699.20 prospective), and made ancillary variations regarding life insurance designation, financial disclosure requirements, and post-judgment interest.

This trial decision addresses divorce, spousal support, equalization of family property, and child support.

The applicant sought leave to amend pleadings to request a charging order, which was granted for the amendment but denied for the charging order itself.

The court granted a divorce, awarded the applicant retroactive and lump sum spousal support on a compensatory basis, and ordered an equalization payment to the applicant.

Child support for the adult child was denied without prejudice.

The respondent spouse brought a motion to set aside a default judgment and multiple prior family court orders, arguing he had never been served with the originating application and related documents.

The court reviewed the service rules under Rule 6 of the Family Law Rules and the test for setting aside default judgments articulated in appellate authority.

Although the moving party acted promptly after learning of the enforcement proceedings, the court found no plausible explanation for his failure to respond where service had been effected at his residence and he admitted ignoring his mail.

The court declined to set aside most prior orders, including those granting exclusive possession and authorizing sale of the matrimonial home.

However, the order noting the moving party in default was set aside and leave was granted to file an Answer and participate in the remaining support and equalization proceedings.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding involving custody of two children, the court addressed a request for costs arising from a motion to adjourn the scheduled trial.

The Office of the Children’s Lawyer sought an eight‑month adjournment shortly before trial due to scheduling conflicts and illness of the clinical investigator, which the father opposed.

The court ultimately granted a shorter adjournment to an earlier date than requested.

Applying rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the objectives of costs awards, the court found the result represented divided success and noted concerns about the lack of detail provided to justify the adjournment request.

Exercising its discretion, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs of the motion.

This is a costs decision arising from a temporary motion by the mother to relocate her child from Ontario to Nova Scotia.

The mother was successful in obtaining permission to relocate.

The court awarded costs to the successful mother, considering factors under the Family Law Rules including the importance of the issues, the reasonableness of each party's behavior, the lawyer's rates, time spent, expenses, and other relevant matters.

The father's failure to serve an offer to settle and his lack of full financial disclosure were significant factors in the costs award.

The applicant mother sought permission to relocate with the child to Nova Scotia prior to trial.

The respondent father opposed the relocation.

The court found that the mother had been the de facto custodial parent, that the child was thriving in her care, and that compelling financial circumstances existed justifying the move.

The court granted temporary custody to the mother and permitted the relocation to Nova Scotia, while retaining jurisdiction over all custody, access, and support issues.

The court found that the mother would inevitably prevail at trial and that the only remaining triable issue was the nature and extent of the father's access.