Kristin Whitley

The applicant mother sought full recovery of legal costs ($26,559.53) for a motion concerning the child's enrollment in French Immersion, which settled before a hearing.

The respondent father opposed costs, arguing the matter settled early and the mother's litigation tactics were unreasonable, or sought costs himself.

The court found the mother was successful on the main issue but both parties acted unreasonably in their approach to the dispute and costs.

The court significantly reduced the mother's claimed costs due to disproportionality and unreasonableness of time claimed, ultimately ordering the father to pay $5,000.00.

Following the separation of a common-law couple, a dispute arose over the ownership of their dog.

The applicant, who had adopted the dog, paid for most of its expenses, and was listed as the owner on all documentation, sought a declaration of ownership and the return of the dog after the respondent took the dog from the street.

The respondent claimed joint ownership or, alternatively, a constructive trust and a shared residential schedule.

The court found that the applicant was the sole lawful owner based on financial contributions, documentation, and primary caregiving, and declined to impose a constructive trust or shared custody arrangement for policy reasons.

The parties were divorced in Connecticut, where a final order dealt with custody and child support.

The father subsequently obtained an order from the Connecticut court permitting him to relocate with the children to Ontario.

After moving, the father commenced an application in Ontario seeking to supersede the Connecticut orders regarding custody, access, and child support.

The mother brought a motion to stay the Ontario proceeding, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or, alternatively, that Connecticut was the more convenient forum.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding that Ontario had jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act and the Family Law Act, and that Ontario was the forum conveniens given the children's habitual residence and the location of current evidence.

The parties separated after a 13-year marriage.

The central issues at trial were the determination of the respondent husband's income as a self-employed musician, the treatment of his royalty income, the imputation of income to the applicant wife, spousal support, child support, and the equalization of net family property.

The court found that the husband's royalty income should be included for support purposes and capitalized for property equalization, rejecting the application of the rule against double-dipping.

Income was imputed to both parties.

The court ordered the husband to pay table child support, a proportionate share of section 7 expenses, compensatory spousal support for a fixed duration of nine years, and an equalization payment of $37,095.57.

A temporary motion for custody and guardianship of a four-year-old orphan from Afghanistan who survived a Taliban attack that killed his parents and siblings.

The applicants, the child's maternal uncle and aunt, sought temporary custody until the maternal grandmother could arrive in Canada.

The respondent, the child's father's nephew who had obtained legal guardianship in Afghanistan and brought the child to Canada for medical treatment, opposed the motion and sought custody.

The court found that the respondent had validly obtained guardianship in Afghanistan with the consent of the maternal grandmother, that the child had been in the respondent's stable and loving care for nearly two years, and that the applicants' allegations of abuse were unsubstantiated and made in bad faith.

The court granted custody to the respondent and his wife, denied the applicants' request for the Office of the Children's Lawyer to be appointed, and prohibited the applicants from having contact with the child without the respondent's consent.