Laurie Heather Pawlitza

The appellant appealed a final order that stepped down and terminated her spousal support.

The motion judge had proceeded on the premise that the parties agreed there was a 'catastrophic change in circumstances' and assessed support de novo.

The Divisional Court found this was an error, as the parties vehemently disagreed on what constituted the catastrophic change, and the motion judge failed to use the existing final order as the status quo.

The appeal was allowed, the motion judge's decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.

The appellant appealed a spousal support order of $125,000 per month following a 24-year marriage.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing the respondent's needs and means, misapplied the Halliwell principle for high-income earners, and erred in awarding indefinite support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the respondent's compensatory entitlement, needs, and means, and confirming that the trial judge properly conducted an individualized fact-specific analysis.

A case management teleconference was held to provide directions for an ongoing family law appeal.

The self-represented appellant, who has a hearing disability, had failed to meet previous deadlines for filing her appeal record.

The court set firm new deadlines for the filing of appeal materials and a brief of proposed fresh evidence.

The court also directed that the appeal be heard in-person to accommodate the appellant's hearing disability, subject to public health conditions.

The self-represented appellant failed to comply with previous court directions regarding the perfection of her appeal, citing a hearing disability, lack of computer access, and inability to participate in teleconferences.

After court staff successfully communicated with the appellant by telephone, the court scheduled a peremptory case management teleconference to address the respondent's proposed motion to dismiss the appeal for delay and to set a new timetable.

The court issued procedural directions in an appeal following unsuccessful attempts to schedule a remote case management conference due to the self-represented appellant's technological and accommodation challenges.

The court ordered the parties to proceed in writing, setting strict deadlines for the appellant to serve her appeal record and any requests to introduce fresh evidence, emphasizing that appeals are not a retrial of the original case.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for the immediate return of the parties' four children, alleging the respondent withheld them contrary to an existing consent order.

The respondent sought to impose a condition prohibiting the children from having contact with the applicant's current partner's children due to COVID-19 health concerns.

The court found that the respondent failed to demonstrate an increased health risk and that the applicant's blended family, despite maintaining separate residences, could constitute a "household" for public health guideline purposes.

The motion was granted, enforcing the original parenting schedule without the additional condition sought by the respondent.

The respondent brought a motion to change seeking to terminate his spousal support obligations after paying for 28 years following a 21-year marriage.

The respondent, aged 72, planned to retire and rely primarily on his pension, which had already been equalized.

The applicant brought a cross-motion to increase support.

The court found that the respondent's retirement constituted a catastrophic change in circumstances and that continuing support from his equalized pension would amount to impermissible double dipping.

The respondent's motion was granted, terminating support via a step-down schedule, and the applicant's cross-motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed from a contempt order under which he was ordered jailed.

On the eve of the expedited appeal hearing, the appellant accepted an offer to settle under which he agreed to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal on a full indemnity scale.

The court found the costs claimed to be wholly disproportionate and far beyond the range of anything that could be considered reasonable, even on a full indemnity basis.

The court fixed costs of the appeal at $30,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes on a full indemnity basis.

Additionally, the appellant sought an extension of time to appeal the order underlying the contempt finding and several other orders, but was largely unsuccessful.

Costs of the motions were fixed at $7,500 on a partial indemnity scale.

No order was made as to costs in relation to the respondent's motion to deny audience to the appellant.

The applicant mother sought full recovery costs of $62,939.39 after being largely successful in custody and parenting motions.

The respondent father sought costs payable in cause or limited to $10,500.

The court found the father acted in bad faith due to his conduct, including involving the child in litigation, non-compliance with orders, and making a baseless insinuation of judicial bias.

Despite the mother not making an offer to settle and her counsel's time appearing excessive, the court awarded the mother $45,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, reflecting disapproval of the father's conduct and a discount for the mother's omissions.

The request to enforce the award as a support order was declined.

The applicant moved to change a child and spousal support order following his termination for cause from his position as CEO of Redknee.

He claimed a catastrophic change in circumstances due to his job loss and the forced sale of his shares to meet margin calls.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it premature as the original order required his income to drop below $465,000 for two consecutive years before a review.

The court also found the applicant failed to prove a material change not contemplated by the original order, noting his lack of disclosure, failure to mitigate, and prioritization of his second family's expenses over his support obligations.

The applicant father sought partition and sale of the matrimonial home, while the respondent mother opposed, citing the child's well-being and her financial situation, and also brought a motion to strike parts of the father's affidavit.

The court granted the father's motion for partition and sale, finding that the mother had not demonstrated prejudice to her rights or the child's needs sufficient to deny the prima facie right to sale.

The mother's motion to strike evidence was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion for the appointment of a parenting coordinator, interim and retroactive spousal support, and life insurance as security for support.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion to extend an access visit for one day to celebrate a religious holiday.

The court granted the father's cross-motion, finding no reason to condition it on the mother's requests.

The court dismissed the mother's request for a parenting coordinator, stating it was not required for an existing access protocol.

Interim spousal support was awarded to the mother at the low end of the SSAG range ($7,500/month), and the father was ordered to arrange life insurance as security.

Retroactive spousal support was reserved for trial.

The applicant moved for leave to appeal a motion judge's decision declining to determine whether Ontario or Georgia law applied to child and spousal support issues, reserving it for the trial judge.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of deferring the issue, as both parties requested an advance determination and the respondent had already appealed the jurisdiction finding to the Court of Appeal.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a motion judge's decision that declined to determine whether Ontario or Georgia law applied to child and spousal support, deferring the issue to the trial judge.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, noting that both parties had requested the determination, the jurisprudence on the applicable law was unsettled, and deferring the issue would leave the moving party in procedural limbo while preparing for trial under two different legal regimes.

The appellant appealed an order providing for child support in accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines and costs on a solicitor and client basis.

The motions judge found a material change in circumstances since the signing of the separation agreement due to the appellant's increased income.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge had jurisdiction to make a final order on the motion, the finding of a material change in circumstances was supported by the evidence, and the costs order was justified due to the appellant's failure to disclose his financial affairs.