Kenneth A. Cole

The respondent brought a motion seeking to enforce a property sale agreement, obtain summary judgment for child support (section 7 expenses), and strike the applicant's pleadings due to non-compliance and unreasonable behaviour.

The court found that a binding agreement for the sale of jointly owned properties existed and incorporated it into an order, granting the respondent sole carriage over the sale.

Summary judgment for the property sale was also granted in the alternative.

However, the court declined to make the temporary order for 100% section 7 expenses against the applicant final, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the respondent's self-sufficiency.

The applicant's pleadings were struck regarding property and financial issues, and she was precluded from seeking further relief on these matters or bringing motions while in breach of disclosure orders.

The respondent's request for an uncontested trial was dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the respondent due to the applicant's unreasonable conduct.

The applicant father sought increased parenting time for their child, proposing a 2-2-3 schedule, following his relocation to Windsor to be closer to the child.

The respondent mother opposed this, seeking less parenting time for the father and a Section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act, citing concerns about the father's conduct and alleged physical discipline.

The court dismissed the mother's request for a Section 30 assessment, finding it unnecessary, and granted the father's request for a 2-2-3 parenting schedule, emphasizing the child's best interests, including the child's expressed wish for equal time with both parents and the need to reduce parental conflict.

The respondent wife brought a motion for interim spousal support and related relief.

The parties, married for over 28 years, presented conflicting narratives regarding the wife's financial contributions.

The court found the wife had a prima facie entitlement to support and imputed an income of $3,000 per month to her for a housing benefit received from her parents.

Based on the husband's average annual income of $586,333, the court ordered him to pay $19,839 per month in interim spousal support.

The issue of retroactive support was left for trial, and the wife was made responsible for the mortgage and line of credit on the Hillcrest Property, while the husband was ordered to pay joint Visa balances and maintain the wife on his health plan.

The respondent brought a motion for interim child support.

The key disputes involved the applicant's income for child support purposes, specifically whether a $730,000 one-time earning from business sales should be included, and whether a $650,000 transfer from the applicant to the respondent for a property down payment constituted an inter vivos gift.

The applicant argued his ongoing payment of over $6,000 in monthly expenses for the matrimonial home should stand in lieu of child support.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding that including the one-time earning would be "double dipping" and that the respondent failed to prove the $650,000 transfer was a gift.

The court set the applicant's income for child support at $194,688.00 and found his property expense contributions covered his child support obligations.

The court also ordered the applicant to ensure the respondent and the parties' son were listed as beneficiaries on his extended health benefits.

The respondent brought an urgent motion for interim child support.

The applicant argued that his payment of over $6,000 per month in family home expenses should stand in lieu of child support.

The court found it could not determine urgency or the merits without further materials from both parties.

The motion was adjourned with a timetable for the delivery of responding and reply materials.

The endorsement addresses the jurisdictional question of whether a Trial Management Conference (TMC) judge has the authority under the Family Law Rules to direct the sequence in which parties lead evidence at trial.

The Applicant argued for the Respondent to lead evidence first, while the Respondent contended the Applicant should lead in the ordinary course.

The court found that a TMC judge does possess such jurisdiction, citing Rules 1(7.2), 2, and 17(6) of the Family Law Rules, and the Supreme Court's direction in Hyrniak v. Mauldin to expand judges' roles in crafting trial procedures.

The court then requested further submissions on whether to exercise this jurisdiction in the present case.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for leave to appeal an arbitration award, the respondent sought costs on a full recovery or substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant argued for a reduced quantum due to his success on the issue of the appropriate test for leave to appeal.

The court found that while the respondent was the successful party, the applicant's partial success warranted a reduction.

After considering the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, including duplication of counsel time, the court fixed costs payable to the respondent at $9,000.

Following dismissal of a motion for leave to appeal an interim arbitration award in a family law matter, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The successful party sought full recovery costs or, alternatively, substantial indemnity costs, while the unsuccessful party argued for a reduced amount and sought a set-off due to partial success on the applicable legal test for leave to appeal.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the successful party was presumptively entitled to costs but reduced the award due to the other party’s success on the legal test issue and duplication of counsel work.

The court also considered the absence of settlement offers, the reasonableness of counsel’s rates, and duplication arising from multiple counsel attending the motion.

Costs were fixed in a reduced lump sum as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interim arbitration award in a family law dispute concerning valuation of corporate and trust interests for equalization purposes.

The arbitrator had dismissed the applicant’s request that the respondent obtain an independent business valuation report, finding a calculation valuation report prepared by the respondent’s expert sufficient.

The court held that the proper test for leave to appeal an interim arbitration award is that in s. 45(1) of the Arbitration Act rather than rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the importance of the matters at stake justified an appeal or that determination of the legal questions would significantly affect the parties’ rights.

The applicant remained free to challenge the valuation evidence or obtain his own report at trial.

The court determined costs following a short family law motion in which the applicant was mostly successful.

The issues were neither complex nor novel and were argued in a two‑hour hearing with no formal offers to settle and no bad faith by either party.

The applicant sought full recovery exceeding $22,000, while the respondent argued that no costs should be awarded or, alternatively, that costs should be limited to $3,000.

Applying proportionality and the reasonable expectations of the parties, the court found the applicant’s requested range inappropriate for an interim motion.

Costs were fixed at $7,500 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.