Linda A. Hanson

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant father sought sole decision-making authority to vaccinate the parties' 13-year-old child against COVID-19.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, relying on a doctor's note and the child's expressed wish not to be vaccinated.

The court took judicial notice of the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and found that the child's views were not independent but influenced by the mother and her retained doctor.

The court granted the father sole decision-making authority for the vaccine and ordered the mother not to provide the child with anti-vaccine information.

The appellant appealed an urgent motion order requiring him to return his three children to their primary residence with the respondent and to pay $3,000 in costs.

The Divisional Court found the appeal on the merits to be moot, as the appellant had already complied with the order to return the children.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal.

Leave to appeal the costs order was denied, as the motion judge's award of full indemnity costs was reasonable and within her discretion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' three children attend school remotely from his home, rather than in person, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The father argued that in-person attendance posed an unacceptable health risk because he and his partner suffer from asthma.

The respondent mother, who has had primary care of the children for seven years, opposed the motion and supported the children's return to in-person learning.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding he failed to present sufficient medical evidence to establish an unacceptable risk of harm to himself or his partner.

The court held that in-person school attendance was in the children's best interests and criticized the father's high-conflict approach to the litigation.

The applicant mother sought to suspend or supervise the respondent father's access to their special needs child, Patrick, alleging non-compliance with medical protocols and COVID-19 procedures.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no material change in circumstances since a recent trial decision that had thoroughly addressed similar issues and established a gradual access regime.

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the previous order and improving parental communication.

The applicant sought sole custody, shared parenting, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The respondent sought joint custody with primary residence and opposed spousal support.

The court granted the divorce, awarded sole custody to the applicant with a 5-2-2-5 shared parenting schedule, finding the respondent had attempted to alienate the children and failed to act in their best interests.

The respondent was ordered to pay child support of $838 per month and spousal support of $348 per month for five years.

Equalization of net family property was settled by consent during trial.

Orders were also made regarding extended health benefits and life insurance as security for support.

The respondent requested and was granted an adjournment on the first day of a scheduled six-day family law trial involving highly contested parenting issues.

The adjournment was granted on the condition that the respondent pay the applicant's costs thrown away.

The applicant sought $7,585.71 for 34.96 hours of wasted preparation time, while the respondent argued for $1,695 representing 7.5 hours.

The court found that significant preparation time would need to be redone, but reduced the claimed hours to account for tasks that were not completely wasted.

Costs thrown away were fixed at $6,102 inclusive of HST.

The appellant appealed a decision reducing her spousal support, arguing the motions judge erred by not directing a trial and by failing to properly account for the compensatory nature of her support.

The appellant also sought to introduce fresh evidence of her historical tax returns.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the Palmer test.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motions judge made no palpable and overriding error in her factual findings, including the finding that the appellant had cohabited with her new partner prior to marriage, and correctly applied the law regarding material change in circumstances.

Following a successful motion by the moving party to terminate his spousal support obligations, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court noted deficiencies in the bills of costs provided by both parties, as they were not organized by major steps in the case.

Applying the Family Law Rules and considering factors including an offer to settle served shortly before the hearing, the court awarded costs of $7,000 to the successful moving party.

The moving party (former husband) brought a motion to terminate spousal support payable to the responding party (former wife), retroactive to May 1, 2016.

The court found that the responding party's post-separation bankruptcy and subsequent remarriage constituted material changes in circumstances.

Given the responding party's reduced need, her failure to maximize her earning capacity, and the increased household income from her new spouse, the court reduced spousal support to a nominal amount of $1 per month for five years, retroactive to April 1, 2017.

Following a family law trial, the court released an addendum to earlier reasons after recognizing that certain issues had not been addressed, including net family property equalization, section 7 expenses, and clarification of child support.

The court held that it retained jurisdiction to resolve matters not previously determined despite arguments that it was functus officio.

After reviewing the parties’ financial statements and submissions, the court accepted the respondent’s equalization calculation and ordered payment to the applicant in monthly instalments.

The court also clarified the applicant’s ongoing obligations for section 7 expenses and established procedures for future proportional sharing based on annual income disclosure.

An order for ongoing child support was specified based on the applicant’s income and the applicable Federal Child Support Tables.

The father brought a motion alleging the mother was in contempt of several prior custody and access orders relating to their child.

The court focused on whether the mother had breached a specific access order requiring the child to spend time with the father.

Evidence showed the mother had conveyed to the child that he could decide whether to attend visits and had taken no meaningful steps to enforce the order.

The court found that these actions effectively discouraged compliance and constituted contempt of the existing access order.

Sanctions were deferred while the court implemented a structured, gradual access regime and counselling measures to rebuild the father–child relationship.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) until they were terminated by the insurer prior to the 104-week mark.

At arbitration, the arbitrator ordered IRBs to be paid for an additional period but found the appellant was no longer substantially disabled from her employment thereafter.

The arbitrator did not address the insurer's obligation to make a loss of earning capacity benefit (LECB) offer.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate held that because the appellant qualified for IRBs at the 104-week mark, the insurer was statutorily required to promptly deliver an LECB offer, even if the ultimate benefit amount might be zero.

However, the Delegate declined to order the continuation of IRBs pending the LECB offer, finding no statutory authority for such an extension once the procedural requirements for termination had been met.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought ongoing income replacement benefits after the insurer terminated them.

The arbitrator found no objective physical injury but accepted that the applicant developed significant emotional and psychological problems resulting in a substantial inability to perform her essential job tasks.

However, evidence showed she was functionally able to operate a chip wagon business on her own by the summer of 1997.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay income replacement benefits from the date of termination until June 1, 1997.

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

He later signed a full and final release in exchange for a $50,000 lump sum payment.

He subsequently sought further benefits, arguing the agreement should be set aside due to misrepresentation, undue influence, and unconscionability.

The Arbitrator found that the insurer did not misrepresent the potential for future benefits, did not exercise undue influence, and that the settlement was not unconscionable.

The agreement was held to be binding, and the application for further benefits was dismissed.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, claiming weekly benefits for a substantial inability to perform essential tasks and supplementary medical and rehabilitation expenses.

The arbitrator found that while the Applicant suffered intermittent low back pain from the accident, it did not cause a substantial inability to perform her essential tasks, especially given her pre-existing medical conditions and sedentary lifestyle.

The claim for weekly benefits was dismissed.

The arbitrator allowed a portion of the claimed supplementary medical and rehabilitation expenses, awarding $816.38, and awarded the Applicant her expenses of the arbitration.