Ben Fortino

The decision addresses a high-conflict parenting dispute involving allegations of sexual abuse and parental alienation.

The court finds that the mother, Melanie Lynn Grillo, alienated the child, Zaria, from her father, Edwin Adam Lawrence Newton, and orders an immediate change of primary residence to the father, with the mother’s parenting time to be expanded at the father’s discretion.

The court finds the abuse allegations unsubstantiated and details the evidence of alienation, referencing leading case law on parental alienation and the best interests of the child.

The applicant mother brought a motion alleging the respondent father breached multiple terms of a final consent order, specifically regarding his failure to engage in parenting coordination and his attendance at the children's school sporting events.

The court found the father breached the order by failing to participate in parenting coordination and ordered him to retain a coordinator and pay costs thrown away.

However, the court dismissed the allegations regarding his attendance at school sporting events, finding the order permitted his attendance and the provision excluding extended family members was unenforceable.

The father sought costs following a 28-day trial regarding a Motion to Change Final Order and related motions.

The court found that the father was overwhelmingly successful on the parenting issues, which consumed 85% of the trial time, while the mother was successful on the child support issues.

The court concluded that the mother's conduct throughout the litigation, including her repeated unsubstantiated allegations of abuse and alienation of the child, amounted to bad faith.

The father was awarded full recovery costs for the parenting issues, offset by the mother's costs for the child support issues.

The court ordered the mother to pay $138,157 in costs, structured as a $50,000 lump sum payment with the balance to be set off against the father's child support arrears and ongoing child support obligations.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were strictly musculoskeletal and that he did not suffer a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's independent examiners over the applicant's occupational therapist and psychotherapist.

The applicant also failed to prove entitlement to a non-earner benefit, as he provided no evidence comparing his pre- and post-accident activities.

The application was dismissed.

The Respondent father brought a motion to change a previous order, seeking joint decision-making with final say on health matters and equal parenting time for the parties' child.

The Applicant mother sought to maintain primary residence and final decision-making power.

The court found a material change in circumstances and, after considering the child's best interests, ordered equal parenting time on a 2-2-3 schedule.

Decision-making authority was split, with the father having final say on health matters and the mother on education matters, in recognition of their communication issues and respective capabilities.

The court also mandated the use of a communication app and ordered compliance with previous orders regarding documentation.

The applicant sought to enforce a settlement agreement, claiming he accepted an offer to settle attached to the respondent's settlement conference brief.

The respondent opposed, arguing the offer was outdated and implicitly withdrawn by a subsequent, less favorable offer.

The court found that while offers attached to settlement briefs are enforceable, the later offer, which left child support unresolved, implicitly withdrew the earlier, more comprehensive offer.

Consequently, the applicant's acceptance of the original offer did not form a binding contract, and his motion was dismissed.

The mother brought a motion to change a final parenting order, seeking to restrict the father's parenting time to supervised visits based on numerous allegations of abuse and neglect.

The father sought a resumption of his parenting time, a declaration that the mother breached the existing order, and a retroactive reduction in child support.

Following a lengthy trial, the court found that the mother's allegations were unsubstantiated and that she had engaged in a pattern of parental alienation and family violence by repeatedly subjecting the child to medical and child protection investigations.

The court ordered a gradual resumption of the father's parenting time, progressing to alternate weekends and equal holiday time.

The court also ordered the mother to undergo a psychiatric assessment and engage in parenting coaching.

The father's claim for a retroactive reduction in child support was dismissed due to a lack of effective notice.

The mother brought a motion to change to implement child and spousal support formulas based on the father's significantly increased income, which reached $2.29 million in 2019.

The father argued the table amount for child support was inappropriate under section 4 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and sought to vary the spousal support order to exclude the mother from sharing in his post-separation income increase.

The court found the table amount for child support was inappropriate as it would result in an unwarranted capital transfer, capping the father's income for child support purposes at $500,000.

However, the court dismissed the father's request to vary spousal support, finding the increase in his income did not constitute a material change sufficient to warrant varying the existing consent order.

This endorsement addresses two motions in a family law dispute concerning child access, child support, and property division.

The respondent father sought expanded unsupervised access, while the applicant mother sought to maintain supervised access and an advance from matrimonial home proceeds.

The court ordered a graduated transition to unsupervised access for the father, found child support arrears, directed payment of these arrears from the father's share of the matrimonial home proceeds, and ordered partial release of funds from the matrimonial home proceeds to both parties, with a larger amount to the mother.

The motion was adjourned for further review of access and costs submissions.

The applicant and respondent both brought short motions.

Due to time constraints and outstanding productions, the court only heard submissions on temporary without prejudice child support.

The respondent, a self-employed contractor, had not paid child support since separation.

The court estimated the respondent's income by adding back certain business expenses to his net income, determining an annualized gross income of $52,500 and an income for child support purposes of $36,750.

The court ordered the respondent to pay temporary child support of $546 per month and adjourned the remaining matters to a long motion.

The applicant sought to change a temporary access order, while the respondent sought to expand his access.

The court considered the best interests of the children, the impact of COVID-19, and the parental conflict.

The court maintained the existing access times but changed the supervision location to the paternal grandmother's home, finding the applicant's concerns about the paternal grandmother's health unsubstantiated and her "investigation" of the respondent's personal life to be overprotective and controlling.

The court emphasized the need for parents to focus on allowing children to love both parents and adhere to COVID-19 protocols.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion to reinstate his struck pleadings, the court determined the costs payable to the successful applicant.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith by failing to comply with financial disclosure orders, warranting full recovery costs under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

However, the court reduced the quantum due to the applicant's counsel's unreasonable delay in responding to communications and excessive hours claimed.

The respondent was ordered to pay $15,000 in costs.

In an ongoing estate litigation matter, the court determined costs for several preliminary steps, including the determination of an estate asset, production of solicitor files, an abandoned consolidation motion, and case management conferences.

The court awarded costs to the applicant and other beneficiaries, payable largely by the former estate trustees personally due to their improper conduct and conflicts of interest, with some portions payable by the estate.

The respondent husband brought a motion to set aside an order striking his pleadings and to reinstate them in a family law proceeding.

His pleadings had been struck due to non-compliance with financial disclosure orders, with a condition that he could move to reinstate them if he complied by a specific date.

The court found that while the respondent made some efforts to comply, he failed to meet the clear deadlines and did not bring his motion to reinstate until over a year later, after the applicant had filed for an uncontested trial.

The motion to reinstate pleadings was dismissed due to the respondent's significant delay and continuous disregard for court orders.

The mother sought costs of $73,127.51 following a successful trial on a Motion to Change regarding child support for an adult disabled child.

The father argued there should be no costs order due to his limited ability to pay.

The court found the father acted unreasonably by failing to provide budgetary information until mid-trial and by advancing numerous claims that were later withdrawn or dismissed.

Considering the father's limited ability to pay and the need to avoid negatively impacting his ability to care for the child, the court awarded the mother $25,000 in costs.

The court declined the mother's request to set off the costs against ongoing child support.

The father brought a motion to change a final order to seek retroactive and ongoing child support for the parties' 25-year-old severely disabled son, who moved into his care in 2014.

The court found a material change in circumstances and that the son remained a child of the marriage.

The court declined to order retroactive support due to the father's delay and failure to provide a budget.

For ongoing support, the court applied section 3(2)(b) of the Child Support Guidelines, apportioning the son's expenses not covered by government funding between the parents based on their respective incomes, resulting in the mother paying $1,167.52 per month.

During an in-person hearing regarding a catastrophic impairment claim, the applicant sought to admit the full neuropsychological report of Dr. Gilman, which had not been fully disclosed prior to the hearing.

The respondent objected on the basis of late disclosure and prejudice.

The Tribunal allowed the full report to be admitted, finding that its relevance and probative value outweighed any prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide the complete report to the respondent's expert and directed a case conference to address any necessary rebuttal reports.

The respondent insurer brought a preliminary issue motion arguing that the Licence Appeal Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine whether an applicant is catastrophically impaired when there are no associated substantive benefits in dispute.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding that the Insurance Act and the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule do not require a claim for a specific substantive benefit to accompany an application for a catastrophic impairment determination.

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine catastrophic impairment on a stand-alone basis.

Following an arbitration decision denying the applicant's claim for the cost of catastrophic impairment assessments, the insurer requested an expense hearing.

The insurer argued the applicant's pursuit of the claim was frivolous and unnecessarily prolonged the hearing with arguments about vested interests.

The arbitrator found the applicant was entitled to pursue her claim but agreed that her counsel's arguments regarding vested interests unnecessarily prolonged the hearing.

The arbitrator awarded the insurer $4,000 in expenses, finding its claimed amount of $8,283.22 to be excessive given the $11,599.99 amount in dispute.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

After several years of procedural steps and delays, the applicant withdrew all of her claims.

Both parties sought their expenses for the arbitration.

The arbitrator found that the insurer was completely successful due to the withdrawal of all claims and that the applicant's counsel had unduly delayed the process by failing to respond to correspondence.

The arbitrator dismissed the applicant's claim for expenses and ordered the applicant to pay the insurer's expenses in the amount of $10,244.44.