Kenna Bromley

The mother (J.M.) sought to appeal an interim order concerning the child's vaccination, which directed immunization and compliance with COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, granting the father (B.S.) sole decision-making power if parties failed.

She moved for an extension of time to appeal and to transfer the appeal from the Divisional Court to the Court of Appeal, arguing the vaccination order was a final order under the Divorce Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both motions, holding that the vaccination order was interlocutory, not final, despite its irreversible practical effect.

The court clarified that jurisdiction for appeals of interlocutory orders under the Divorce Act lies with the Divisional Court, requiring leave.

This costs endorsement followed a trial of an issue where the Separation Agreement was set aside (Applicant's primary claim) and the date of separation was determined (Respondent's alternative position).

The Applicant, M.H., sought full costs recovery, while the Respondent, O.K., argued for no costs due to divided success and M.H.'s unreasonable conduct.

The court found M.H. to be the significantly more successful party on the dominant issue of setting aside the agreement, especially given her Rule 18(14) Offer to Settle and O.K.'s complete failure to make any offer.

Despite some unreasonable conduct by M.H. (financial disclosure, inadmissible evidence) leading to a modest reduction, and O.K.'s success on the ancillary separation date issue, M.H. was awarded substantial costs.

The court drew an adverse inference against O.K. for failing to provide his own Bill of Costs.

The trial determined whether a 2015 Separation Agreement should be set aside as a sham under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act, and if so, the parties' separation date.

The court found the Agreement to be a sham because the parties were not separated, did not intend to separate, and did not intend to be bound by its terms when it was signed, using it primarily for tax advantage.

Consequently, the Agreement was set aside.

The court determined the actual date of separation to be December 18, 2019, when the husband physically left the matrimonial home and formed the intention to separate, rejecting the earlier date claimed in the Agreement and the later dates proposed by the wife.

The applicant step-father sought costs following a successful motion to resume contact with the child.

He sought full recovery costs of $26,570.27 based on an offer to settle.

The respondent mother argued for reduced costs due to partial success, financial hardship, and trauma-based motivations.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful on the core issue of resuming contact and that his costs were proportional.

The court fixed costs at $20,000, to be paid at a rate of $200 per month set off against the applicant's ongoing child support obligations.

The Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services (Society) brought a motion for summary judgment to terminate an interim supervision order, withdraw their protection application, and dismiss the parents' Answers and Plans of Care.

The respondent mother and maternal grandmother consented, but the respondent father opposed, seeking access and custody for the paternal grandmother.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding no genuine issue for trial, emphasizing the children's best interests and their strong, consistent views to remain with their mother and not re-establish a relationship with their father.

The court found the children could be adequately protected without further Society intervention, particularly through a Voluntary Service Agreement with the mother.

This decision addresses costs following a 16-day family law trial primarily concerning complex parenting issues, including allegations of parental alienation and mental health challenges.

The court found the Mother (Applicant) to be more successful overall.

It apportioned the costs of a custody and access assessment, requiring the Mother to pay 30% ($10,950) of the $36,492 cost.

For the general costs of the proceeding, the Father's unreasonable litigation conduct, despite being self-represented, significantly lengthened the trial and increased the Mother's legal costs.

The Father was ordered to pay the Mother $20,000 in costs, from which the Mother's assessment contribution was deducted, resulting in a net payment of $9,050 to the Mother within 60 days.

The court declined to make costs enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.

The respondent brought a motion for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home, which the applicant opposed, alleging malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct and hardship.

The court found no such conduct or hardship related to the home and granted the order for sale.

The court also addressed spousal support, imputing the respondent's income at $85,000 due to incomplete disclosure and ordering temporary spousal support at the higher end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range, considering the applicant's disabilities and needs.