Karla Policelli

The applicant initiated proceedings seeking property division, exclusive possession, and partition and sale of a jointly owned residence.

The central issue was determining the parties' date of separation, as the applicant initially pleaded December 8, 2020, but later asserted August 2015.

The respondent, represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) due to incapacity, could not confirm the date.

The court applied the corroboration requirement under s. 14 of the Ontario Evidence Act for claims against an incapable party.

Based on objective medical records and financial evidence, the court rejected the applicant's revised date and found the date of separation to be December 8, 2020.

In a return motion concerning a high-conflict family law matter, the respondent mother sought to maintain sole decision-making and no contact for the applicant father with their eldest child, Abi, due to the father's alienating behavior.

The mother also sought primary care of their younger child, Sammy, and sole decision-making for Sammy on health and tutoring, plus an order for the father to pay half of reunification counseling costs.

The court found the father lacked sufficient insight into his manipulative conduct that contributed to Abi's estrangement.

The court maintained the temporary order granting the mother sole decision-making for Abi and prohibiting father's contact, contingent on the father's meaningful engagement in reunification counseling.

The week-about parenting schedule for Sammy was maintained, but the father was ordered to take Sammy to appointments, and both parents were restricted on phone usage for Sammy.

The father was ordered to pay half of the reunification counseling costs.

The applicant, who was terminally ill with ALS, brought a motion to sever the divorce from corollary relief and grant an immediate divorce to maximize pension survivor benefits for his children.

The respondent agreed to the divorce but sought security for outstanding and future child support, as the applicant had cancelled his life insurance contrary to their separation agreement.

The court granted the severance and immediate divorce, finding that the pension survivor benefits constituted reasonable arrangements for child support.

The court also ordered the applicant to temporarily designate the respondent as the beneficiary of his supplementary death benefit in trust to secure any outstanding child support obligations.

The Applicant brought a motion seeking temporary child support, partition and sale of the matrimonial home, and disclosure.

The court had previously ordered the sale of the home.

This endorsement addresses the remaining issues: temporary child support, disposition of sale proceeds, and disclosure.

The court imputed an income of $50,000 per year to the Respondent for child support purposes, ordered retroactive child support to be paid from the Respondent's share of the home sale proceeds, and ordered a portion of the proceeds to be held in trust as security.

The Respondent was also ordered to provide extensive financial disclosure.

The court dismissed the Respondent's unpleaded claims for damages and spousal support.

The respondent mother brought a motion for an interim order for child support arrears and ongoing section 7 expenses, including costs for competitive hockey and swimming.

The father agreed to pay table support and his share of childcare, medical, and educational expenses, but disputed the arrears calculation and his ability to afford competitive sports.

The court dismissed the claim for 2020 child support arrears and deferred the 2019 arrears claim for further submissions based on the Colucci framework.

The court ordered the father to contribute to tutoring, laptops, and specific tournament fees, but found the mother failed to establish that the base costs of competitive hockey and swimming were necessary, reasonable, or consented to as extraordinary expenses.

The moving party sought an extension of time and leave to appeal a family arbitration award that ordered her to pay $112,140 in retroactive spousal support.

The court granted the extension of time, finding the delay was short, explained, and caused no prejudice.

However, the court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, concluding the moving party failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator made any error of law regarding the recipient's needs, delay, or hardship to the payor.

The respondent mother sought costs of $7,200 on a substantial indemnity basis following her successful defense of the applicant father's motion to compel the interim sale of the matrimonial home.

The father argued for mixed success and that the parties should bear their own costs due to the mother's alleged unreasonable conduct.

The court found the mother was the successful party and that her conduct was reasonable.

However, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the father's refusal to accept an offer to purchase his share did not warrant an elevated award.

Costs were fixed at $3,600 payable by the father to the mother.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order of Somji J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay agreed costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant father brought a motion for the interim sale of two jointly owned properties under s. 2 of the Partition Act.

The respondent mother consented to the sale of the rental property but opposed the sale of the family home, seeking exclusive possession.

The court found that the mother's right to claim exclusive possession under the Family Law Act was extinguished upon the parties' divorce.

However, the court denied the father's request to sell the family home, finding that he failed to plead the Partition Act in his original application.

Furthermore, the court exercised its discretion to refuse the interim sale under the Partition Act, citing the hardship it would cause the mother and children, the mother's offer to purchase the father's interest, and the need to resolve equalization issues at trial.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $15,123.05 following a successful motion for child support and section 7 expenses.

The applicant argued that each party should bear their own costs or that costs be fixed at $5,000.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, the court rejected the request for full indemnity costs.

The court fixed the respondent's costs at $8,250, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, after accounting for a $750 set-off for a prior adjournment.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking a temporary reduction in the father's parenting time by removing overnight contact, child support commencing September 2018, and contribution to Section 7 expenses from 2019.

The applicant father opposed the parenting time reduction and sought child support and Section 7 expenses to commence from January 2021.

The court allowed the motion in part, ordering that overnight visits would continue with imposed terms, child support would commence effective March 1, 2019, and the father would contribute his proportionate share to incurred daycare, Stagecraft, and piano expenses, while denying contributions for swimming and skating.

The appellant appealed a Family Court order awarding the respondent spousal support at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines for both quantum and duration, as well as a payment for unjust enrichment based on a joint family venture.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by not deducting the respondent's Ontario Disability Support Program benefits from the spousal support calculation and by finding an inability to work without independent expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the support award and upholding the trial judge's application of the joint family venture framework to the unjust enrichment claim.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $8,841.12 for a case conference and a motion concerning parenting issues, alleging unreasonable conduct by the respondent and having bested her own offer to settle.

The respondent argued for each party to bear their own costs or a lesser amount.

The court, applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality from *Beaver v. Hill* and *Mattina v. Mattina*, found the respondent engaged in unreasonable conduct but determined that the applicant did not meet the requirements for having bested her offer.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $4,625, inclusive of the case conference and motion, payable within 30 days.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for a temporary order for primary residential care of the three children, with specific parenting time for the respondent father.

The father opposed, seeking a different schedule, including equal residential time when he returned to work.

The court found serious credibility issues with the father's evidence and noted his conduct in overholding and withholding the children.

The mother's account of primary caregiving prior to separation was accepted.

The court granted the mother primary residential care, finding it to be in the children's best interests, and dismissed the father's counter-proposal for immediate or future equal residential time due to the children's need for stability.

This endorsement determined costs following a previous decision where the respondent's motion for interim supervised access was dismissed.

The applicant sought costs, arguing she was the successful party and the respondent acted unreasonably.

The court awarded the applicant costs, finding her behavior reasonable and the respondent's unreasonable due to lack of disclosure and a tailored access plan.

The respondent's limited financial means were considered but did not insulate him from costs given his conduct, outstanding child support, and previous unpaid cost orders.

The respondent sought interim supervised access to his two children, aged 9, after having no access since November 2017 due to charges of possession and distribution of child pornography and a prior conviction for sexually assaulting a minor.

The applicant opposed the motion, citing significant concerns about the respondent's criminal charges, mental health, and lack of disclosure.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion for interim supervised access, finding it was not in the children's best interests given the serious nature of the charges, the respondent's mental health issues, the lack of information on the children's views, and outstanding disclosure.

The court ordered a referral to the Office of the Children's Lawyer and further disclosure from the Children's Aid Society and the respondent regarding his medical status and treatment.

The applicant father sought to proceed with a scheduled custody and access trial under the Divorce Act, while the respondent mother and the Children's Aid Society sought a stay due to newly commenced child protection proceedings involving allegations of abuse.

The court found that while s. 103 of the CYFSA does not automatically stay Divorce Act proceedings, the court has inherent jurisdiction and authority under Rule 2 of the Family Law Rules to grant a stay.

The court ordered the family proceedings stayed pending the completion of the child protection proceedings to avoid duplicity and allow the CAS to complete its investigation.

The moving party sought costs of $17,500 following a motion where he unsuccessfully sought sole custody but successfully obtained an order for access to his children.

The responding party opposed the costs, arguing success was divided and her behaviour was reasonable.

The court found that the matter was factually complex and neither party behaved unreasonably.

Noting that success was divided, the court ordered the responding party to pay $3,000 in costs to the moving party.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary previous orders, seeking temporary sole custody of the children and no access for the applicant mother, following the dropping of criminal charges against him and new charges laid against the mother.

The applicant mother opposed this and requested a s. 30 assessment.

The court dismissed the father's request for sole custody and no access for the mother, but granted him temporary supervised access with the paternal grandmother.

The mother's request for a s. 30 assessment was also declined at this stage.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of a father's motion for summary judgment and a change in parenting arrangements, where the court ordered him to pay child support.

The respondent mother was deemed the successful party on the major issues of joint custody and parenting, and secured a higher child support amount than she had offered.

However, the applicant father succeeded on a minor issue regarding the reimbursement of Dr. Smyth's report costs.

Applying Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, the court considered the importance and complexity of the issues, the parties' conduct, counsel's rates, time spent, and the father's financial capacity.

The court awarded the mother $4,000 in costs, noting that her legal aid status does not diminish the costs award.