Kristy Warren

This decision concerns an appeal by James Brent Maxwell from an arbitration award regarding child support, retroactive child support, and costs, following a lengthy family law dispute with Lynne La Fontaine.

The court reviews the arbitrator’s findings on income imputation, retroactive support, and the application of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, particularly regarding support for adult children attending post-secondary education away from home.

The court finds that while the arbitrator made a reviewable error by failing to conduct a proper analysis under s. 3(2)(b) of the Guidelines for adult children living away from home, most other findings were within her discretion.

The appeal is allowed in part, with directions for further submissions on quantification if the parties cannot resolve the issue.

The Applicant sought an order extending the deadline to apply for an openness order under s. 196(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, relying on the court's parens patriae jurisdiction.

The motion was brought due to a procedural error where the application was served but not issued within the statutory 30-day limit.

The Children's Aid Society consented, while the Office of the Children's Lawyer did not oppose the exercise of parens patriae but required the legal test to be met.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no unintentional legislative gap in the Act and concluding that exercising parens patriae jurisdiction was not necessary to protect the child's best interests, as the child had already filed their own timely openness application.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

The moving party father sought to stay an arbitration award requiring him to pay over $1.8 million in retroactive child support and nearly $800,000 in costs pending his appeal.

The mother opposed the stay and brought a cross-motion for security for costs.

Applying the RJR-Macdonald test, the court found the father raised serious issues to be tried but failed to establish irreparable harm, noting his significant wealth and access to capital.

The court dismissed the motion to stay the child support award, granted a partial stay of the costs award, and ordered the father to post $75,000 as security for the costs of the appeal.

The appellant sought to set aside an administrative dismissal of her spousal support application, which was initially refused by the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in principle by treating the factors for setting aside a dismissal as rigid hurdles, misanalyzing prejudice, and failing to properly consider the policy favoring determination on merits.

The Court emphasized that lawyer inadvertence and the ability to restart the claim without limitation period expiry weighed against upholding the dismissal.

The dissenting opinion argued for deference to the motion judge's discretion and emphasized the importance of enforcing Family Law Rules timelines to combat delay.

The applicants sought to enforce a Chinese arbitral award of approximately $10 million CAD against the respondent in Ontario.

The respondent opposed enforcement, arguing she did not receive proper notice of the arbitration and that the arbitration was not 'international' under the Model Law.

The court found that the respondent was properly served in accordance with the applicable arbitration rules and that the arbitration was international because the respondent habitually resided in Canada when the arbitration agreement was made.

The application to recognize and enforce the award was granted.

The respondent Anthony Novac and third-party respondents (collectively "Novac/Sonco") brought motions for a preservation order and security for costs, respectively, against the applicant Jennifer Ann Leitch.

These motions followed a prior judgment where Leitch was ordered to pay significant costs.

Anthony sought a preservation order for Leitch's assets, including the Caledon farm property, and alternatively, its transfer to him based on a trust claim.

Novac/Sonco sought security for costs and preservation of the farm and artwork.

Leitch opposed, wishing to sell the farm and arguing against priority for creditors and lack of grounds for a Mareva injunction.

The court dismissed Anthony's request for the farm's transfer but granted the preservation orders for the farm and artwork in Leitch's possession, finding that Leitch's financial circumstances and prior unreasonable conduct justified securing the substantial costs awards.

The applicant, Jennifer Ann Leitch, brought a motion for a declaration of conspiracy and damages, while the respondent, Anthony James Charles Novac, brought a cross-motion for a decrease in child and spousal support.

The applicant's motion was dismissed, and the respondent's motion was granted.

This ruling addresses the significant costs sought by the successful respondent and third-party respondents (Novac/Sonco) against the applicant.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, the complexity of the issues, the applicant's unreasonable litigation strategy, and the proportionality of the costs.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments for reducing costs based on the respondent's alleged misrepresentation of income or her limited means, emphasizing that the applicant, a litigation lawyer, understood the risks.

The applicant wife alleged that her former husband and his family (the third-party respondents) engaged in a complex civil conspiracy to hide his income and assets through corporate restructuring and family trusts, thereby defeating her claims for child and spousal support.

The third-party respondents brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the conspiracy claims, while the applicant brought a cross-motion for partial summary judgment.

The husband also brought a motion to retroactively reduce his interim support obligations, arguing his income had materially decreased.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the third-party respondents' motion, dismissing the conspiracy claims, finding that the corporate transactions were undertaken for legitimate tax and estate planning purposes, not to harm the applicant.

The court also granted the husband's motion to vary support, significantly reducing his child and spousal support obligations retroactively to January 1, 2017, based on a material change in his income.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, the applicant wife brought a motion to compel further production of documents and answers to undertakings from the respondent husband and his father, alleging they conspired to conceal the husband's income and assets.

The court dismissed the request for pre-2012 documents as irrelevant to the conspiracy claim.

However, the court ordered the mass production of post-2012 emails, finding the respondents' search terms too limited, and ordered the production of certain solicitor-client files, finding the father had waived privilege by relying on a specific privileged communication to defend against the conspiracy claim.

The applicant wife sought to set aside a marriage contract and requested interim spousal support of $50,000 per month, alleging duress, undue influence, unconscionability, and inadequate financial disclosure.

The respondent husband opposed the motion, arguing the contract was valid and that the applicant's refusal to produce her former counsel's file warranted an adverse inference.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding no serious issue to be tried regarding the contract's validity under the two-stage Miglin test.

The court upheld the contractual spousal support of $12,000 per month and ordered the applicant to pay costs to the respondent.

The respondent, having successfully stayed a custody application due to lack of jurisdiction and secured the child's return, sought costs.

The applicant opposed, citing inability to pay and challenging the Family Responsibility Office's enforcement jurisdiction.

The court denied FRO enforcement for custody-related costs but awarded $100,000 in costs to the respondent, citing the applicant's egregious conduct, bad faith, and unreasonableness, and the importance of the issues, while considering the applicant's ability to pay.