A. Lawrence Filion

In a family law costs ruling following competing motions for temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and interim spousal support, the court considered the costs presumptions and discretionary factors under the Family Law Rules and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court held that neither party met the offer-to-settle consequences in Rule 18(14), and that success on the underlying motion was divided on the two principal issues of possession and support.

Although both parties advanced some unreasonable positions in their costs submissions, the court found that the overall result and litigation conduct justified no costs order.

Each party was required to bear their own costs of the motion.

This costs decision followed bifurcated motions concerning child access and disclosure of Children's Aid Society records.

The court addressed the admissibility of "without prejudice" settlement offers for costs purposes, finding an exception to privilege when issues are adjudicated.

Considering divided success and party conduct, the Applicant was awarded partial costs.

The Respondent, Dr. Norman Lauzon, brought a motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The Applicant, Ms. Louise Mignault, brought a cross-motion for exclusive possession or mutual possession, and for interim spousal support.

The court granted Dr. Lauzon exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, finding continued cohabitation intolerable and the balance of convenience favouring him due to health considerations.

The court also ordered Dr. Lauzon to pay interim spousal support to Ms. Mignault in the amount of $1,600.00 per month, imputing income to him from his RRSPs and applying the "interim" exception to the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines due to compelling financial circumstances.

The parties separated when the mother moved from Ontario to Ohio with their four-year-old child.

Following separation, the parties established a status quo where the child rotated between their residences every six weeks.

Both parties brought motions for interim sole custody.

The court declined to make an interim custody order, finding that the evidentiary record was insufficient to determine the child's best interests and that maintaining the six-week rotation status quo until trial was appropriate.

The court granted the father's request for the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer but denied his request for an order requiring the mother to sign a Canadian passport application.

This was a family law costs decision following competing motions concerning the respondent mother's access to the children.

The court applied the Family Law Rules costs framework, including success, reasonableness, offers to settle, and ability to pay.

It found the applicant father was the successful party because the substantive ruling largely reflected his cautious approach to rehabilitating the respondent's relationship with the children, and because his rejected offer was essentially as favourable as the result obtained.

Taking into account the importance of the children's best interests, the absence of bad faith, and the respondent's limited means, the court awarded reduced all-inclusive costs of $1,750.00.

On competing temporary motions within a family law motion to change, the court addressed parenting time, disclosure, and procedural relief concerning two children living primarily with the father.

The mother sought a transition from supervised to unsupervised access after a prolonged interruption in contact and evidence of addiction treatment and recent sobriety, while the father sought continued supervision, disclosure of disability-related and mental health materials, and an updated children's lawyer report.

Applying a best-interests analysis at the interim stage, the court ordered supervised six-hour visits every second weekend, resumed telephone access, limited attendance of the mother's common-law spouse, and directed a case conference.

The court also ordered production of the Canada Pension Plan disability document, required letters from treating mental health and medical professionals instead of full counselling records, directed an updated s. 112 report, and required completion of Form 35.1 information.

On competing temporary motions within a family law motion to change, the court addressed parenting time, disclosure, and procedural relief concerning two children living primarily with the father.

The mother sought a transition from supervised to unsupervised access after a prolonged interruption in contact and evidence of addiction treatment and recent sobriety, while the father sought continued supervision, disclosure of disability-related and mental health materials, and an updated children's lawyer report.

Applying a best-interests analysis at the interim stage, the court ordered supervised six-hour visits every second weekend, resumed telephone access, limited attendance of the mother's common-law spouse, and directed a case conference.

The court also ordered production of the Canada Pension Plan disability document, required letters from treating mental health and medical professionals instead of full counselling records, directed an updated s. 112 report, and required completion of Form 35.1 information.

The applicant mother brought a motion to vary a final order to permit her to relocate with the parties' two children to Tamworth to live with her new partner.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking custody, shared parenting, or increased access, and the paternal grandparents sought specific access.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework and found that the move would be highly disruptive to the children, particularly given one child's special needs and their strong attachment to the family farm and paternal grandparents.

The mother's request to relocate was dismissed.

The court ordered extended access for the father and a specific access schedule for the grandparents.