Ken H. Nathens

The applicant, Dr. Lazare, sought partial costs of $48,450 following a spousal support review.

The respondent, Ms. Heitner, argued for no costs, citing divided success, her April 3, 2018 Offer to Settle, and her financial means.

The court found Dr. Lazare largely successful on the dominant issues at trial, including income determination, child support, section 7 expenses, and the denial of Ms. Heitner's claim for indefinite spousal support, despite not achieving his preferred spousal support termination date.

Ms. Heitner's single, non-severable offer to settle, made late in the litigation, and her overall litigation conduct were deemed unreasonable.

The court awarded Dr. Lazare $35,000 plus HST in costs, reflecting a partial recovery due to the divided success on the spousal support termination date and other factors.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's claims against her late husband's estate, the respondent sought substantial indemnity costs, alleging reprehensible conduct by the applicant.

The court found that the applicant's conduct, including her vigorous pursuit of the claim and her testimony regarding the marriage contract, did not amount to reprehensible conduct justifying elevated costs.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs, fixing the amount at $75,000 inclusive of disbursements, plus HST.

Anna Lehmann sought spousal support from the estate of her deceased husband, William Lehmann, and a declaration of sole beneficial ownership of their matrimonial home (Foxboro property) by right of survivorship.

The court dismissed both claims, upholding the validity of the marriage contract's spousal support release and finding that the joint tenancy of the Foxboro property had been severed by subsequent amending agreements, resulting in a tenancy in common with the estate.

The applicant father brought a motion to change seeking to terminate spousal support and adjust child support to reflect a shared parenting arrangement.

The respondent mother sought to continue full table child support and significantly increase spousal support with no termination date.

The court found the mother was intentionally under-employed and imputed her income at $78,000.

The court ordered a set-off of child support under section 9 of the Guidelines and ordered spousal support to continue at the current quantum until August 31, 2021, at which time it will terminate.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 21-year common-law relationship.

The applicant sought a beneficial interest in several properties, spousal support, and priority over CRA liens, while the respondent sought retroactive child support.

The court found the parties were engaged in a joint family venture and awarded the applicant a 50% interest in two properties and a 33% interest in a third property purchased post-separation using joint funds.

The respondent's claim for retroactive child support was dismissed as the children were independent adults when the claim was made.

The court awarded the applicant retroactive and ongoing periodic spousal support, imputing income to both parties.

Finally, the court held that the applicant's constructive trust interest in the properties took priority over the CRA's subsequently registered tax liens.

The parties, former cohabitants, brought cross-motions following their separation.

The respondent sought spousal support, return of personal property, and interim disbursements for legal fees.

The applicant sought the sale of a jointly held condominium.

The court ordered the applicant to pay interim spousal support of $2,350 monthly, with the respondent responsible for condominium common expenses and insurance.

The applicant was also ordered to return all condominium contents she had unilaterally removed.

The condominium was ordered to be sold, with proceeds held in trust.

The respondent's request for interim disbursements was dismissed.

The court also provided directions for financial disclosure and questioning.

This ruling addresses the costs arising from a successful motion for spousal support and other relief brought by the wife.

The wife, as the successful party, sought $10,000 in costs, while the husband proposed $2,500.

Neither party had made an Offer to Settle.

The court awarded the wife $5,000 in costs, inclusive of HST, emphasizing the importance of Offers to Settle in family law litigation and their impact on costs awards.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support, repayment of a $25,500 loan, and an order striking the respondent husband's pleadings for non-compliance with a disclosure order.

The parties separated after the wife discovered the husband's extramarital affairs.

The wife, who was injured when struck by a car driven by the husband, claimed she could not work and needed support.

The court ordered the husband to pay $5,000 per month in interim spousal support and to forthwith repay the $25,500 loan.

The court declined to strike the husband's pleadings but ordered him to provide an affidavit answering the outstanding disclosure requests.

The father brought an urgent motion to reinstate unsupervised access to his three-year-old daughter after the mother unilaterally withheld access based on allegations of sexual abuse.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking supervised access.

The court reviewed the history of investigations by police and child protection authorities, all of which concluded the allegations were unfounded.

Applying the risk of harm analysis, the court found insufficient credible evidence of abuse and determined there was a low risk of harm and significant benefit to the child having a relationship with the father.

The father's motion for unsupervised access was granted and the mother's cross-motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's calculation of the equalization payment, arguing errors in the inclusion and exclusion of certain bank accounts, property sale proceeds, and the valuation of home contents.

The Court of Appeal found no errors in the trial judge's credibility assessments, factual findings, or application of the valuation date.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicant moved to change a long-standing spousal support order after paying support for nearly 19 years following an 18-year marriage.

He relied on new family responsibilities, health concerns, reduced working hours, and the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines to argue that support should terminate.

The court held that the record did not permit a finding of a material change in circumstances within the meaning of s. 17 of the Divorce Act, and that speculative future income loss could not ground variation.

In any event, the court found the respondent remained both entitled to and in need of support on compensatory and non-compensatory bases, and dismissed the application.

The moving party was successful in obtaining leave to appeal but unsuccessful in obtaining a stay of a temporary order regarding the exclusive use of a Florida condominium.

The court determined that the moving party was the more successful party overall, as the bulk of the preparation and argument focused on the leave issue.

Applying the factors in Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered the responding party to pay costs fixed at $5,500 inclusive.

The husband sought leave to appeal an interim order granting the wife exclusive possession of a condominium located in Florida for one week per month, and a stay of that order pending appeal.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the order because the Family Law Act limits exclusive possession to matrimonial homes situated in Ontario, and the motions judge did not fully consider whether the court could exercise in personam jurisdiction over foreign property.

However, the court dismissed the motion for a stay pending appeal, finding the husband would not suffer irreparable harm.

Following the breakdown of a 41‑year marriage, the parties sought competing equalization payments under the Family Law Act.

The court considered disputes regarding undisclosed bank accounts allegedly belonging to the respondent’s sister, artwork claimed as excluded property by the applicant, and other asset valuations.

Emails between the respondent and his sister were admitted despite allegations they were improperly obtained, as they were highly relevant and the respondent had misled the court about their existence.

The court rejected the respondent’s explanation that approximately $74,000 in bank accounts belonged to his sister and included those funds in his net family property.

Accepting the applicant’s net family property calculation, the court ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $73,678.50, released trust funds to the applicant, secured payment against the matrimonial home, and granted a divorce.

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking reduction or termination of spousal support, termination or adjustment of child support for adult children pursuing post‑secondary education, and removal of a life insurance requirement securing support obligations.

The respondent cross‑moved for increased spousal support and arrears.

The court considered the Federal Child Support Guidelines and jurisprudence governing support for adult children living away at university, finding that full table support may be inappropriate where parents are already contributing to living and education costs.

The court ordered modified child support reflecting different circumstances for each child and required a contribution from the adult child pursuing additional education.

Spousal support remained payable at $1,700 per month based on compensatory principles arising from childcare responsibilities and economic disadvantage, with income imputed to the respondent.

The payor was also ordered to obtain increased life insurance to secure support obligations and to pay arrears.

A costs endorsement following a motion for child support and orthodontic expenses.

The applicant sought costs of $3,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, while the respondent sought no costs award.

The court found the applicant was the successful party and had made a reasonable offer to settle on December 14, 2011, which complied with all conditions under subrule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The respondent's offer to settle was significantly less favourable than the final order.

The court awarded costs of $2,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable within 45 days, taking into account the respondent's ability to pay and the tax deductibility of legal fees for support recipients.

The applicant sought temporary child support for the parties' 15-year-old daughter and the respondent's pro-rata share of orthodontic expenses.

The respondent sought to fix his income at a lower amount based on medical reasons and undue hardship, and requested a reduction in child support to $300 per month.

The court fixed the respondent's income at $71,321 based on his 2010 tax return, rejected the undue hardship claim, and ordered child support at the guideline table amount.

The court also found that orthodontic treatment constituted a special expense and ordered the respondent to pay his pro-rata share after insurance coverage.

In a family law dispute involving allegations of hidden assets and non-disclosure, the wife sought business records from a corporation formerly co-owned by her husband.

The husband had sold his interest to his business partner, who then refused access to the records.

The motion judge ordered the third-party partner and corporation to disclose the records under Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that while the motion judge erred by relying on previous disclosure orders against the husband rather than making an independent determination of unfairness, the disclosure order was nonetheless justified.

The appeal was dismissed, but the husband was ordered to reimburse the third parties for their reasonable expenses in complying with the order.

The husband appealed an order striking his Answer to the wife's claims for support and equalization.

The motion judge struck the Answer because the husband breached an order for disclosure of financial information relating to his business.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that striking a pleading is a serious remedy and the husband's conduct was not sufficiently serious to warrant it.

The husband was ordered to pay the wife's costs of the motion to strike and the costs of compelling production from his former business partner.

The parties reached a settlement agreement prior to the disposition of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the lower court's judgment in accordance with the terms of the settlement.