Lauren Hanna

The respondent, Brian Milne, brought a motion for contempt against the applicant, Mo Yi (Jessie) Milne, alleging breach of a parenting order.

He also sought remedies including fines, enrollment in the Family Bridges Program, and police assistance.

Jessie brought a cross-motion to dismiss the contempt motion and request an Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) referral.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the order was not clear enough to establish contempt beyond a reasonable doubt, but found a breach on a balance of probabilities.

The court denied the request for the Family Bridges Program and police enforcement, deeming them inappropriate at this stage.

The OCL referral was also dismissed.

The court ordered a structured, increasing parenting schedule for Brian and the children, along with reunification therapy for Brian and the children, and individual therapy for the children, with costs split 55% by Jessie and 45% by Brian.

The Applicant brought a motion to change child and spousal support provisions from a temporary order issued in 2013.

The court found the issues, including a claim for a significant overpayment and income imputation, to be complex and involving credibility disputes, making them unsuitable for a motion and more appropriate for a full trial.

The judge emphasized the need for efficient use of judicial resources and discouraged repetitive motions on issues that should be resolved at trial.

The Applicant was granted leave to withdraw the motion, and the matter was adjourned for a settlement conference to finalize the main application.

This is a costs decision arising from a custody and access appeal concerning three children.

The father's appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on all four grounds.

The court awarded the mother costs fixed at $25,000, representing 60-70% of her actual costs.

The decision addresses the presumption of costs in favour of successful parties in family law matters, the application of the Family Law Rules cost framework, and the impact of unreasonable conduct by both parties.

The court also addressed costs related to an unsuccessful appeal to the Divisional Court, declining to award costs for that stage due to the confusing nature of family law appeal routes in Ontario.

The appellant father appealed a custody and access order from the Superior Court of Justice concerning his three sons.

The motions judge granted summary judgment in favour of the respondent mother, awarding her sole custody of two of the three children and ordering that the father's access and communication with the children be at the children's discretion.

The father challenged the appropriateness of summary judgment, the weight given to the custody assessment, the best interests analysis, and alleged Charter violations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motions judge's decision to proceed by summary judgment, his consideration of the evidence, his analysis of the children's best interests, and his costs award.

The applicant, Tom, sought an order for the parties' 14-year-old child, Scarlet, to live with him in the United Kingdom and attend school there.

The respondent, Marie, opposed this motion and brought a cross-motion for interim child and spousal support, and s. 7 expenses.

The court dismissed Tom's motion, finding it was not in Scarlet's best interests to be uprooted from her established home and school in Toronto.

The court granted Marie's request for interim child and spousal support, and s. 7 expenses, based on the parties' 2016 incomes.

Marie was granted interim custody with final decision-making authority.