Laura Pilon

The parties separated in 2017 after a 17-year marriage.

The mother sought a divorce, sole decision-making, primary residence, retroactive child support, and a restraining order.

The father sought gradually increasing parenting time and claimed his income was zero due to a car accident.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making and primary residence, limiting the father's parenting time to monthly calls due to his coercive controlling conduct and lack of boundaries.

The court imputed an income of $30,000 to the father due to his failure to provide financial disclosure and ordered retroactive child support to January 2018.

A restraining order was also issued against the father.

The parties, parents of two children, sought a determination on decision-making responsibility, holiday schedules, retroactive child support, and section 7 expenses following a high-conflict separation.

The court ordered that the respondent father have final decision-making responsibility for education, while the applicant mother have final decision-making responsibility for medical issues, including the authority to have the children vaccinated against Covid-19.

The court found the respondent did not meet the 40% shared custody threshold under section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and ordered him to pay $25,050 in retroactive child support.

Claims for section 7 expenses were largely dismissed due to a lack of consultation, though a small amount for tutoring was awarded.

This endorsement addresses a dispute over costs following a previous motion.

The respondent sought to enforce a settlement agreement where the applicant would pay $3,000 in costs at $150 per month.

The applicant argued she did not agree to this amount and could not afford it.

The court found a clear and unequivocal settlement agreement between counsel, which the applicant had partially acted upon.

Applying principles of a lawyer's ostensible authority to settle, the court upheld the agreement, ordering the applicant to pay the agreed-upon costs.

This was a family costs endorsement following a nine-day trial concerning decision-making, parenting time, child support, life insurance securing support, and a requested restraining order.

The court held that the respondent in the main proceeding was successful overall on the most important and time-consuming issues, notwithstanding partial lack of success on the restraining order claim.

Applying the Family Law Rules costs framework, the court considered success, formal and informal offers to settle, party conduct, proportionality, reasonableness, and the self-represented party’s ability to pay.

The court found a fair and reasonable award was $42,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable within 90 days.

The respondent father brought a motion for an order that the parties' four-year-old son be enrolled in in-person kindergarten.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, arguing that the child should continue in daycare due to his asthma and the risk of COVID-19, and brought a cross-motion to enroll the child in counselling without the father's consent.

The court granted the father's motion, finding that the mother failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to establish an unacceptable level of risk to the child from attending school.

The court also dismissed the mother's cross-motion regarding counselling, finding no evidence that her preferred program was better than the home-based program the father agreed to.

Following a successful motion regarding the child's school enrollment, the applicant mother sought costs of $8,603.97.

The respondent father argued the amount was excessive and suggested $1,500, citing duplication of work due to the mother changing lawyers and a prior agreement limiting costs to the school issue.

The court found the mother's request reasonable, noting she had already reduced her claim by $3,000 to account for duplication and the agreement.

The court awarded the mother costs of $8,603.97.

The trial focused on parenting time, decision-making, child support, and a restraining order for the parties' three-year-old son.

The court granted sole custody and primary residence to the mother (Ms. Reynolds) with specified generous parenting time to the father (Mr. Smith), finding that joint decision-making was not feasible due to communication issues and differing parenting styles.

Mr. Smith's request for a child support reduction based on undue hardship was denied, and he was ordered to pay retroactive child support.

Ms. Reynolds' request for a restraining order against Mr. Smith was also denied, as the court found no current objective reasonable grounds for fear, despite past emotional abuse and harassment.

The Applicant Mother sought an order for the child to attend Woodroffe Public School or, alternatively, Robert Hopkins Public School.

The Respondent Father opposed, seeking Convent Glen Public School or Heritage Public School.

The court, applying the best interests of the child principle under the Children's Law Reform Act, ordered the child to attend Robert Hopkins Public School, which was the Mother's alternative choice.

The decision also specified arrangements for parenting exchanges, with school exchanges during the week and exchanges at the maternal grandmother's home on weekends.

The applicant sought the sale of jointly owned property (a condominium, camping trailer, and boat) and spousal support following the parties' separation.

The respondent sought to set aside the transfer of the condominium into joint ownership, arguing a resulting trust due to a gratuitous transfer for estate planning purposes.

The court found the condominium transfer was gratuitous and the presumption of a resulting trust in favor of the respondent was not rebutted.

Consequently, the condominium title was ordered transferred back to the respondent's sole name.

The applicant's claims for the camping trailer and spousal support were dismissed due to lack of consideration for the trailer and insufficient evidence to support spousal support entitlement.

The Applicant sought additional access to the child due to the Respondent's denial of access.

The parties agreed on a revised interim access schedule, with the court deciding two remaining issues regarding third-party exchanges and drop-off locations.

The court also addressed outstanding and new costs, ordering the Respondent to pay $1,500 in existing costs and an additional $500 for a withdrawn motion and an adjourned appearance.

The decision emphasized the child's best interests and the need for parties to comply with court orders and communicate via OurFamilyWizard.com.