Matt Milczarczyk

The maternal grandparents brought a motion to be added as parties to a family law proceeding to seek a contact order with their grandchildren.

The applicant father opposed the motion, while the respondent mother consented.

The court reviewed the test for adding parties under Rule 7 of the Family Law Rules and concluded that the grandparents should be added as parties solely for the purpose of pursuing their claim for a contact order, but not to participate generally in the parents' broader parenting dispute.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Milan Janic’s appeal from a motion to change child support and expense sharing, upholding the motion judge’s findings on imputed income, disclosure, and conflict of interest.

The court found no error in the treatment of financial evidence, the imputation of income, or the application of federal law, and awarded costs to the respondent.

The applicant sought the release of a settlement conference transcript to impeach the respondent's credibility in a motion to change a final order regarding spousal support.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, affirming the strong presumption of confidentiality for settlement conferences under Rule 17(23) of the Family Law Rules.

The court held that only extraordinary circumstances, typically involving safety concerns, would warrant the release of such transcripts, and no such circumstances were demonstrated.

The applicant mother sought primary care, sole decision-making, and supervised parenting time for the parties' three-year-old child, citing the respondent father's ongoing drug addiction.

The father sought shared parenting and tendered a forged negative hair follicle drug test during the trial.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making and primary residence, finding the father lacked stability and a viable financial plan.

The father's parenting time was ordered to be supervised until he could prove he was free of street drugs.

Child support was imputed to the father starting in 2023, and he was ordered to pay full indemnity costs due to his egregious litigation conduct.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a previous child support order, seeking to reinstate the terms of a 2004 separation agreement regarding post-secondary education expenses.

The respondent father sought a retroactive adjustment for alleged overpayments of section 7 expenses.

The court found the father intentionally under-employed, operating a business at a loss for over 10 years, and imputed his income at $100,000.

The mother, who claimed disability without medical evidence, had her income imputed at $84,000.

The court ordered the child to contribute $1,750 to his education, with the parents sharing the remaining post-secondary expenses pro rata based on their imputed incomes.

Following a trial in which the plaintiff recovered $15,000 in damages for breach of contract, the court addressed the issue of costs.

Although the damages awarded fell within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, the court considered Rule 57.05(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and determined that denying costs was not appropriate in the circumstances.

The court found that expert evidence was reasonably required by both parties and that the plaintiff’s claimed disbursements and partial indemnity fees were modest and reasonable.

The defendant’s request for costs was rejected because the plaintiff had succeeded on the central issue of breach of contract.

Following a family law motion concerning financial disclosure and interim support, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant had achieved complete success on her motion while the respondent was unsuccessful on his cross‑motion.

The court considered Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and relevant appellate authority on proportionality and fairness in costs awards.

Although the respondent argued that disclosure would have been produced after his business year‑end, the court held that bringing the motion was reasonable given prior delay and incomplete disclosure.

A costs award of $2,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST was granted, with a portion enforceable through the Director under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996.