Kevin D. Zaldin

The respondent father brought a motion requesting a case conference on parenting issues, which had been previously adjourned due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant mother opposed.

The court granted the motion, ordering a one-hour settlement conference restricted to parenting issues, to be held electronically by the Case Management Judge.

Specific directions were given for scheduling, scope, and electronic filing of briefs and offers to settle, with parties advised to consider the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on their proposed solutions.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion brought by the Applicant for interim fees and disbursements.

The Applicant sought $23,047.34 in costs, while the Respondent argued for a maximum of $6,600.

The court found both parties engaged in unreasonable litigation conduct.

The Applicant's conduct included serving an overly lengthy motion and attempting to use counsel's own affidavit, leading to costs thrown away.

The Respondent's conduct involved inconsistent evidence.

After disallowing certain time entries and considering the unreasonable conduct of both parties, the court reduced the Applicant's claimed costs and awarded $7,500 to the Applicant, payable by the Respondent.

The respondent sought leave to appeal an order requiring him to pay the applicant's interim legal fees and disbursements of $60,000.

The court applied the two-part test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found no conflicting decision making leave desirable and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the original order, which had carefully reviewed the merits and hardship.

The respondent's motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion for contempt against the respondent mother for failing to comply with access and counselling provisions of a prior consent order.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking sole custody, flexible access based on the child's wishes, and restrictions on the father's communications.

The court found the mother in contempt, ruling that her permissiveness empowered the child to disregard the order, and that a parent has a positive obligation to ensure compliance.

The mother's requests for sole custody and flexible access were denied, as they would curtail the father-child relationship.

However, some communication restrictions on the father were granted, with amendments, and made mutual where appropriate.

The mother was ordered to purge her contempt.

The Children and Family Services for York Region (CFS) brought motions seeking temporary care and custody of four children (J.F.1, S.C., S.L.F., P.C.) from their mother, M.F. The father, R.C., brought a cross-motion for the children to remain in M.F.'s care with a gradual transition of S.C. and P.C. to his primary care, and for the removal of a family support worker.

The court dismissed both the CFS motions, finding that while parents had significant parenting deficits, the evidence did not meet the "required" test under s.64(8) of the Child and Family Services Act for the older children, nor the "reasonable grounds to believe harm" test under s.51(3) for the youngest child, provided appropriate supervision conditions were in place.

R.C.'s cross-motion was also dismissed, including his request to remove the family support worker due to lack of jurisdiction and merit.

The children remained in M.F.'s temporary care and custody under strict supervision conditions.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, and the respondent brought a cross-motion for access to their two young children.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $62,000 and found the applicant had established a prima facie case for spousal support entitlement due to the economic disadvantage of parenting.

The court ordered interim child and spousal support, and granted the respondent graduated access, starting with supervised visits and transitioning to unsupervised access, with strict conditions regarding the supervision of his older special needs child.

Following a three-day family law trial, the court addressed costs where the applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement and obtain increased spousal support.

The agreement was upheld, but the court ordered spousal support on terms differing from the agreement.

Both parties claimed overall success.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and principles of fairness, proportionality, and divided success, the court found the applicant partially successful.

Modest costs were awarded to reflect success on spousal support but failure on the claim to set aside the agreement.

Following a family law trial concerning custody, access, and section 7 expenses for the parties’ child, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The respondent mother had been largely successful at trial, obtaining sole custody and restrictions on the father’s access until he educated himself about the child’s serious medical condition, along with ongoing section 7 expense contributions.

Although success was somewhat divided on certain financial issues and the respondent had withdrawn an equalization claim, the court found the applicant father had acted unreasonably in the litigation, particularly regarding his refusal to acknowledge or engage with the child’s medical needs.

Considering Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules and the parties’ offers to settle, the court concluded the respondent should receive costs, but reduced the award due to mixed success on some issues.

The applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement following a 26‑year marriage, alleging non‑disclosure, misrepresentation of property value, unconscionability, and undue influence under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

The court found both parties had similar information about the value of a jointly owned cottage and that there was no failure of financial disclosure, misrepresentation, or undue influence sufficient to invalidate the agreement.

The property division provisions were found to be broadly consistent with the statutory equalization regime and were upheld.

However, the spousal support provision providing $443 monthly for only 18 months failed to meet the objectives of the Divorce Act in a long‑term traditional marriage with ongoing caregiving responsibilities.

The court ordered ongoing spousal support consistent with the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and required life insurance security while support remained payable.