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.

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.

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.