Kirsten Hughes

The applicant mother sought to relocate their 10-year-old son from Toronto to Naperville, Illinois, due to a job promotion.

The respondent father opposed the relocation.

The court determined the burden of proof was shared, as the child did not spend "vast majority" or "substantially equal" time with either parent.

After a holistic assessment of the child's best interests, considering relocation-specific and general factors, the court denied the mother's relocation application.

The court found the father discharged his burden that relocation was not in the child's best interests, citing concerns about the impact on the child's relationship with the father, disruption to schooling, and the mother's willingness to foster a meaningful co-parenting relationship.

Joint decision-making was ordered, and a divorce was granted.

This is a costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario following the dismissal of an appeal.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court reviewed the submissions and fixed costs in favour of the respondent at $22,500, inclusive of disbursements and HST, rejecting the claim for substantial indemnity costs.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judgment concerning parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and child support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed her motion to introduce fresh evidence, upholding the trial judge's parenting order which included shared parenting time and the father having final decision-making responsibility.

The court also affirmed the trial judge's calculation of the father's income for child support purposes.

However, the Court of Appeal remitted the issue of child support arrears for a six-month period (September 2019 to February 2020) to the trial judge for further consideration, as it was not addressed in the original reasons.

A proposed intervener brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in a family law appeal concerning child custody and the best interests of the children.

The appellant consented, but the respondent opposed the motion.

The court acknowledged the proposed intervener's expertise but dismissed the motion, finding that the late timing of the application would cause significant prejudice to the respondent, who would not have adequate time to respond to the intervener's factum before the scheduled appeal hearing.

The parties brought competing motions for interim relief concerning the matrimonial home, child support, spousal support, and financial disclosure.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, finding the financial arrangement unsustainable for the respondent and the sale inevitable.

The applicant's motions for interim exclusive possession, interim child support, and interim spousal support were dismissed without prejudice due to insufficient evidentiary record and lack of full financial disclosure.

The court also declined to compel the applicant to obtain further business valuations or income analysis reports at his expense, noting the respondent could obtain her own.

The parties engaged in a high-conflict family law trial primarily concerning the custody and access of their two children.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, alleging the children were alienated from the respondent father and his new wife.

The respondent father sought sole custody, alleging the mother was alienating the children from him.

The court found both parties contributed to the conflict but determined the mother's evidence lacked credibility on several substantive issues.

The court awarded custody to the father with an equal timesharing arrangement, finding he was more likely to facilitate contact with the other parent.

The court also ordered ongoing therapeutic intervention to ensure a balanced relationship between the children and both parents, and determined the parties' incomes for child support purposes.

The applicant and respondent disagreed on their date of separation, which was relevant to claims for divorce, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The applicant claimed the separation date was September 9, 2017, while the respondent claimed it was March 7, 2014.

The court conducted a trial on this discrete issue.

After reviewing the parties' living arrangements, financial affairs, and credibility, the court found the respondent's evidence more reliable.

The court concluded that the parties began living separate and apart on March 7, 2014, following a domestic incident, and that there was no reasonable prospect of resuming cohabitation after that date.

The parties separated in 2015 and proceeded to a family law trial to resolve issues of decision-making, parenting time, spousal support, and financial adjustments.

The mother sought sole decision-making and relied on allegations of domestic violence, which the court found to be overstated and not a factor in decision-making.

The court awarded joint decision-making and increased the father's parenting time, though it denied his request for an equal timesharing schedule.

The court imputed an income of $30,000 to the mother and ordered the father to pay mid-range spousal support for a time-limited duration of three further years.

Various financial adjustments to the equalization payment were also ordered.

The applicant father and respondent mother engaged in a high-conflict custody and access dispute over their five-year-old child.

The mother sought sole custody and decision-making, while the father sought expanded access and parallel parenting.

Following a 44-day trial and a section 30 assessment, the court granted the mother sole custody and primary residence, but significantly expanded the father's parenting time to include phased-in overnight visits.

The court ordered a divided parallel parenting regime for decision-making, granting the mother authority over education and routine medical care, and the father authority over routine dental care and final decision-making for major medical and dental issues.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion to change spousal support.

The parties had been married for 21 years and reached a consent order in 2012 providing for $12,000 per month in spousal support plus 27% of incentive employment income.

The motion judge dismissed the motion to change, finding that while the respondent's income had increased, no additional compensatory support was warranted.

The appellant argued the motion judge misunderstood the principles of compensatory support under Moge v. Moge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no legal error, error in principle, or significant misapprehension of evidence.

Following a complex motion where the applicant was entirely successful in imputing income and obtaining child and spousal support, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought full recovery of $94,373.45, arguing the respondent acted in bad faith by failing to provide adequate financial disclosure.

The court found the respondent's defiant, uninformative, and misleading approach to disclosure constituted bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

However, noting the applicant's bill of costs lacked sufficient particularity and applying principles of proportionality, the court fixed costs at $39,550, with $31,640 enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

Following a family law trial regarding custody, time-sharing, and child support, the self-represented applicant sought costs of $21,513.00.

The respondent argued for no costs.

The court reviewed the outcomes of the trial and determined that success was highly divided.

Furthermore, the court found that the applicant had engaged in highly unreasonable and irresponsible litigation conduct throughout the proceedings, which unnecessarily prolonged the trial.

Consequently, the court ordered that no costs were payable by either party.

The applicant's motion to change was dismissed, and the respondent sought costs of $185,000 on a full indemnity basis.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and entitled to costs.

The court determined that costs should be awarded on a partial indemnity scale, noting the complexity of the issues and the amount at stake.

After adjusting the hourly rates and reducing the time claimed for preparation and trial, the court fixed the respondent's costs at $134,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2007 final order that provided for joint custody and equal time-sharing of the parties' special needs child.

The parties had co-parented reasonably well until 2014, after which high conflict erupted, leading to multiple police and Children's Aid Society interventions.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the intense conflict and the respondent father's repeated breaches of the existing order.

The court awarded sole custody to the applicant, finding she was more attuned to the child's needs and wishes, but reinstated the equal time-sharing arrangement, concluding it was in the child's best interests.

The applicant's claim for retroactive child support was dismissed as the respondent had actually overpaid support during the relevant period.

The applicant was ordered to pay child support for the period the child resided primarily with the respondent under a temporary order, and ongoing support was set based on a set-off calculation for shared parenting.

The applicant sought to vary a spousal support order, arguing a material change due to the respondent's significantly increased income.

The respondent resisted, denying a material change or seeking a reduction.

The court found a material change in circumstances but dismissed the applicant's request for a substantial increase in fixed spousal support, upholding the original formula-based order.

The court also interpreted the definition of 'incentive employment income' for bonus calculations, finding only one minor item qualified.

This 6.5-day trial addressed spousal support and the determination of the applicant wife's income following an 11-year marriage between two physicians with three children.

The wife sought compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, arguing her career choices and reduced work hours were made to accommodate child-rearing and the husband's more demanding career as an interventionist cardiologist.

The husband sought to impute a higher income to the wife based on an expert's report.

The court rejected the expert report due to methodological flaws, found the wife entitled to both compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, and declined to impute income to her.

Child support was also determined based on a set-off formula due to equal time-sharing.

The court ordered indefinite spousal support commencing January 1, 2015, and specified child support amounts from January 1, 2013, with annual review mechanisms.

Following settlement of all parenting issues during a contested custody trial, the court determined costs.

The applicant mother had offered settlement terms largely consistent with the ultimate resolution, including sole decision‑making authority, while the respondent father pursued joint custody despite significant conflict and concerns identified in a s. 30 assessment.

The court found the applicant was more successful overall and criticized aspects of the respondent’s litigation conduct, including unilateral and intimidating behaviour and trial strategies that prolonged proceedings.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considering proportionality and ability to pay, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the applicant.

The applicant and respondent separated in 2008 and sought resolution of issues relating to custody, access, child support, and equalization.

The court granted a divorce and ordered an equalization payment to the applicant.

The court awarded sole custody and primary residence of the child to the applicant, finding that the respondent's involvement in a large-scale drug operation and his inconsistent evidence regarding his income and employment raised significant concerns about his ability to provide a stable home.

The court imputed an income of $50,000 to the respondent for child support purposes due to his failure to provide reliable income information and ordered him to pay ongoing and retroactive child support.

In a family law trial limited to monetary claims for equalization and post-separation adjustments, the court resolved numerous financial disputes between the parties.

The court found that the respondent was solely responsible for the aborted sale of the matrimonial home and that the applicant signed an agreement to pay her $125,000 under duress, rendering it invalid.

The court also adjudicated claims regarding staging costs, valuation of jewellery, the applicant's purchase of a Mercedes-Benz using joint funds, and numerous withdrawals from joint bank accounts, ordering various reimbursements based on the available evidence.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a prior final custody order providing for joint custody and an equal week-about parenting arrangement.

She sought sole custody and supervised access for the father, arguing that ongoing parental conflict rendered the existing arrangement unworkable.

The court held that the applicant failed to establish a material change in circumstances as required by the governing test for variation of custody orders.

The evidence demonstrated that the parties' high-conflict relationship predated the original consent order and was foreseeable when it was made.

The child, represented by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, expressed a clear wish to maintain the joint custody and equal parenting schedule.

The motion to change was dismissed and the respondent was awarded partial indemnity costs.