Katherine Lee Shadbolt

The moving party, Lynda Van Delst, sought an order from the Court of Appeal for Ontario to quash Thomas John Hronowsky’s third appeal concerning an equalization payment.

The court granted the motion, finding the appeal to be an abuse of process.

The decision highlighted Mr. Hronowsky's history of protracted litigation, non-compliance with previous court orders, and the mootness of his primary ground of appeal, which collectively prevented Ms. Van Delst from enforcing valid court orders.

The appellant, Thomas John Hronowsky, sought a panel review of a motion judge's decision that dismissed his request for a stay of orders from a lower court and other relief, as well as an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court of Appeal, applying the standard of review for a motion judge's decision, found no error in principle, misapprehension of material evidence, or unreasonableness in the original decision.

Consequently, the appellant's motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

This is an appeal from orders concerning the equalization of net family property and costs in a divorce proceeding.

The appellant husband challenged the trial judge's recalculation of the respondent wife's pension value, the payment order, and the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the husband's appeal, finding no error in the pension valuation or the enforcement order, and refused leave to appeal the costs.

The court also granted the wife's request to amend the enforcement deadline to allow for a period to pursue cash payment before pension rollover.

Following a trial to recalculate an equalization payment based on the applicant's pension, the applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that the trial was entirely unnecessary, as the respondent had access to the applicant's expert report well in advance and the respondent's own expert reached essentially the same conclusion.

Furthermore, the applicant had made multiple offers to settle that were as favourable or more favourable than the final trial decision, which the respondent failed to accept.

The court exercised its discretion to award the applicant costs on a full recovery basis in the amount of $30,392.

The Applicant Father brought a motion to adjust the parenting schedule for the youngest child, Lucas, following the Respondent Mother's relocation to Orleans and changes in school enrollment for all three children.

The court had previously granted the Mother permission to move the children and change schools for Max and Lucas.

This endorsement addresses the subsequent dispute over parenting time and transportation arrangements.

The court considered proposals from both parents and the Office of the Children's Lawyer, aiming to establish a schedule in Lucas's best interests that minimized disruption and parental conflict, while acknowledging the Mother's increased driving responsibilities due to the move.

The Father brought a motion seeking to prevent the Mother from unilaterally changing the children's schools and relocating them from Barrhaven to Orleans, or alternatively, to vary parenting time if the move was permitted.

The Mother opposed, citing financial necessity for the move.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" test from *Gordon v. Goertz*, found a material change in circumstances justifying the Mother's relocation to Orleans with the children.

The court permitted the Mother to move Max and Lucas to Orleans and to enroll Lucas in Convent Glen Catholic School, while Max was to remain at his current high school unless accepted into a special program.

The Father's parenting time was to be modestly increased to account for the relocation.

Following an appeal with divided success regarding an equalization payment and pension valuation, the parties could not agree on costs.

The Court of Appeal determined that the respondent was the more successful party.

The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's appeal costs fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The issue of trial costs was referred back to the trial judge.

This appeal concerned the valuation of federally regulated pensions for equalization purposes in family law, specifically addressing the determination of the "normal retirement date." The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by using case-specific intentions for retirement dates instead of applying the functional meaning of "normal retirement date" as defined under the provincial Pension Benefits Act (PBA) scheme, which represents the age at which any member is entitled to unreduced pension benefits (age 60 for these parties under the Public Service Superannuation Act).

The court emphasized that the provincial valuation methodology should be applied to federal pensions with only "necessary modifications." The appeal was allowed in part, remitting the matter for recalculation of the equalization payment based on the corrected normal retirement date.

Other grounds of appeal regarding survivor benefits, contingent survivor benefits, date of marriage deductions, notional disposition costs, and the method of equalization payment were dismissed.

The Applicant sought substantial indemnity costs of $9,638.47 for an interim motion, while the Respondent sought no costs.

The court found the Applicant was largely successful on the interim motion.

The Respondent's conduct was deemed unreasonable, including non-compliance with disclosure orders, changing positions on property sale, and late filing of materials and an unreasonable settlement offer.

Despite this, the court did not award substantial indemnity costs.

Considering factors under Family Law Rules, r. 24(12), the court fixed costs at $6,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, to be paid by the Respondent to the Applicant.

The Respondent's impecuniosity was not a reason to deny costs given her unreasonable litigation conduct.

The Applicant sought the sale of a jointly-titled property under the Partition Act and opposed interim spousal support for the Respondent.

The Respondent opposed the sale, citing her mother's health and a potential gift, and sought interim spousal support.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the property, finding the Respondent's reasons unpersuasive and her financial capacity insufficient to purchase the Applicant's interest.

The court also declined to order interim spousal support, noting the Applicant was already covering significant property expenses benefiting the Respondent and her mother, which effectively provided a non-taxable benefit equivalent to potential support.

The moving party sought leave to appeal, which was denied.

The court initially awarded $2,000 in costs, penalizing the responding party for failing to file costs submissions five days prior to the hearing.

The responding party subsequently clarified that costs submissions were withheld because of the existence of offers to settle, in accordance with counsel's interpretation of a practice direction.

The court rescinded its initial endorsement, finding that the responding party had complied with the practice direction.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and awarded the responding party costs fixed at $5,000.

The separated parents disagreed on which school their two young sons should attend.

The mother wanted them to attend a local public school offering early French immersion, while the father wanted them to attend a private school founded by his mother.

The court applied the best interests of the child test, considering factors such as class size, individual attention, continuity, and the children's specific needs.

The court ordered that both children attend the private school, noting the smaller class sizes and the father's parents' offer to pay tuition.

The applicant moved for temporary spousal support, and the respondent moved for temporary child support and contribution to section 7 expenses.

The parties were married for 23 years, during which the applicant was financially dependent on the respondent, who has a high net worth.

The court imputed an annual income of $25,000 to the applicant due to his voluntary underemployment.

The court ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support of $4,600 per month and ordered the applicant to pay $304 per month in child support and $823 per month for section 7 expenses.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully opposing the respondent's motion regarding a jointly retained expert.

The applicant had made three offers to settle the motion, which the respondent rejected.

The court declined to evaluate the fairness of the proposed terms for a joint retainer, noting that such terms must be acceptable to both parties and cannot be imposed by the court.

Consequently, the court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs fixed at $16,380.

In a family property motion, the respondent sought an order requiring a jointly retained business valuator to expand his mandate to calculate notional income tax liabilities and provide alternative valuation opinions, and alternatively sought to use another expert retained by the applicant.

The court held that the Family Law Rules concerning expert duties and court-appointed experts did not authorize the court to enlarge a joint retainer without both parties' consent or compel an expert to act in a conflict position.

The court also rejected the argument that the expert-duty provisions altered the traditional role of experts, relying on appellate authority confirming those rules merely restated existing common law duties.

The motion was dismissed.

Following a successful appeal permitting the appellant mother to relocate to Oakville with the child, the respondent father also relocated to Oakville part-time.

The parties agreed to vary the father's parenting time and submitted a consent order.

Because the consent order differed from the court's original decision, the Registrar could not issue it.

The Court of Appeal directed the Registrar to accept and issue the consent order.

The appellant mother previously succeeded in an appeal permitting her to move from Ottawa to Oakville with her daughter and granting her sole legal custody.

The respondent father subsequently requested the court amend the judgment regarding custody, arguing it had not been contested.

The Court of Appeal affirmed its previous order granting sole custody to the mother, finding that joint custody requires a high degree of cooperation which was not present on the record.

The court also awarded costs to the appellant, fixed at $20,000 plus disbursements, taking into account the additional access costs the respondent would incur due to the move.

The appellant mother appealed a motions judge's decision denying her request to relocate from Ottawa to Oakville with her five-year-old daughter.

The Court of Appeal found the motions judge erred by refusing to admit fresh evidence regarding the mother's pregnancy and changed family circumstances, refusing to permit cross-examination of the court-appointed assessor, and delegating the mobility determination to the assessor without independently applying the Gordon v. Goertz factors.

The appeal was allowed, permitting the mother to relocate with the child.