Patrick Schmidt

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion to adjourn the trial scheduled for January 2016 to April or May 2016.

The moving party argued that an adjournment was necessary due to outstanding expert reports, incomplete questioning, and a pending section 30 assessment report.

The responding party opposed the motion, citing prejudice and the moving party's failure to comply with previous timetables.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party had twice consented to trial dates and failed to comply with the associated timetables, and that further delay would prejudice the responding party and the parties' child.

Following a 16‑day family law trial in which the applicant was successful, the court determined the appropriate costs award after 15 years of litigation.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs exceeding $777,000, arguing the respondent engaged in bad faith conduct and unreasonable litigation behaviour, including misleading evidence about property ownership and income.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the respondent acted in bad faith and repeatedly frustrated the litigation process.

The court held that full recovery costs were appropriate and rejected arguments based on proportionality and inability to pay.

Costs were fixed at $716,711.11 in favour of the applicant.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 17-year cohabitation and 8-year marriage.

They jointly operated an interior design business.

The respondent controlled the finances and used joint business revenues to purchase a commercial property in his own name, falsely claiming for years that it was owned by a corporation.

The court applied the doctrine of fraudulent concealment to toll the limitation period and awarded the applicant a 45% constructive trust interest in the property based on unjust enrichment.

The court also imputed significant income to the respondent, who had diverted rental income to his corporation to avoid support obligations.

The applicant was awarded lump sum retroactive spousal and child support, an equalization payment, and prejudgment interest, with the respondent's share of property sale proceeds to be paid into court as security due to his history of non-payment.

In a family property dispute, the moving party pursued remaining disclosure requests after an earlier motion endorsement deferred certain items to a trial management conference.

The court held that the outstanding requests were either expanded beyond the original requests, duplicative of requests already dismissed, unnecessary in light of prior answers, or effectively addressed through questioning and trial management processes.

The remaining disclosure motion was dismissed in full.

Costs were ordered to the responding party on a partial indemnity basis, with quantum to be fixed by the trial judge.

In a long-running high-conflict family property proceeding, the court continued a trial management conference and fixed a detailed timetable for final disclosure, limited questioning, financial statements, settlement conference materials, and trial preparation.

The respondent was permitted to amend his pleading to advance a claim for occupation rent, but his request for access to the matrimonial home with real estate agents was refused because prior orders barred motions.

The court also directed service of business records notice without redaction if hospital records were to be relied upon, required particulars for alleged defaults under prior orders, and scheduled a focused settlement conference concerning ownership and value of a specific property and the respondent's revenue from all sources.

Costs of the trial management conferences were reserved to the trial judge.

The moving party father brought a motion to terminate child support, incurring nearly $400,000 in legal fees, which was ultimately dismissed.

The responding party mother, who was largely self-represented but utilized unbundled legal services, sought costs.

The court found the father's conduct unreasonable and disproportionate to the financial issues at stake.

The court awarded the mother $90,000 in costs, recognizing the need to compensate self-represented litigants and those using limited scope retainers to ensure access to justice.

In a family law proceeding between unmarried cohabiting parties with two children, the respondent sought disclosure relating to the applicant’s assets and financial circumstances.

The respondent advanced a claim of unjust enrichment based on a joint family venture and requested valuation reports for corporate interests, stock options, and other assets, as well as a completed net family property statement to assess wealth accumulated during cohabitation.

The court held that meaningful disclosure was necessary to evaluate the alleged joint family venture and ordered the applicant to obtain valuations and complete the financial disclosure.

The court relied on the principles from Kerr v. Baranow concerning the sharing of wealth created during cohabitation.

Directions were also given regarding disclosure timelines, questioning, and further case management prior to settlement conference.

The respondent father brought a motion to terminate or vary child support obligations established by prior consent orders, arguing that the parties’ adult child was no longer a dependent after changing schools, residing in Toronto for a period, and receiving student loans and grants.

The court found that the child remained a dependent due to documented learning disabilities and continued pursuit of a first undergraduate degree with a reduced course load.

The temporary change in residence and attendance at another institution did not constitute a change in circumstances warranting termination or reduction of support during the five‑year period contemplated by the consent order.

The court held the father to his contractual commitment to pay $5,000 per month child support and post‑secondary expenses for the agreed five‑year period.

For the sixth and final year of studies, support was recalculated based on the father’s income and set at $2,921 per month until completion of the degree.

A family law motion addressed the interim handling of disputed section 7 expenses held in trust by the respondent’s counsel pending a scheduled trial concerning the termination of child support for an adult child.

The applicant intended to seek dismissal or stay of the respondent’s motion to change for alleged non-compliance with a prior court order requiring continued payment of child support and post‑secondary costs.

The court considered the potential prejudice to both parties, noting the possibility that the respondent had substantially overpaid child support and might be unable to recover any overpayment if the funds were released.

Finding the respondent’s proposed alternatives reasonable and fair, the court ordered that the disputed funds remain in counsel’s trust account pending the outcome of the trial.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $3,500, payable after judgment following the hearing.