Richard Keith Guy

Following a successful motion to change in which spousal support was terminated and the opposing claim for increased support was dismissed, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The successful party sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $20,000 plus HST and disbursements.

The opposing party argued that either no costs should be awarded or that costs should be limited to $5,000, emphasizing limited income.

Applying Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules and the principles governing reasonable costs awards, the court took a global approach, considering the modest complexity of the case, the two‑day trial, and the parties’ financial circumstances.

The court fixed fair and reasonable costs at $10,000 inclusive of HST, with disbursements to be addressed separately if the parties could not reach agreement.

The moving party sought to terminate ongoing spousal support payable under a prior order following a long-term marriage.

Material changes included the termination of child support, increased income of the payor, reduced employment income of the recipient, and the recipient’s long‑term cohabitation with a new partner contributing significant household income.

Applying the Family Law Act and jurisprudence on compensatory and non‑compensatory support, the court found the recipient had been adequately compensated through equalization and ten years of support, and had achieved a reasonable standard of living in her new relationship.

The court concluded the economic consequences of the marriage had been equitably addressed.

Spousal support was ordered to terminate prospectively to allow the recipient time to adjust financially.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated after a turbulent marriage and sought a determination of custody and access for their three young daughters.

The father sought joint or shared custody on an alternating weekly basis, while the mother sought sole custody with access reflecting the status quo.

The court found that both parents loved the children but were unable to communicate effectively or shield the children from their conflict.

Relying on the mother's role as the historical primary caregiver and the stability she provided, the court awarded sole custody to the mother.

However, to protect the father's relationship with the children, the court expanded his access to include a mid-week overnight and required his written consent for major decisions regarding relocation, education, and religion.

The court also granted a divorce and ordered the father to pay child support.

In a dependant’s support application under the Succession Law Reform Act brought by a surviving spouse against a deceased spouse’s estate, the estate respondents moved to add the applicant’s adult children as parties.

The respondents argued that the children may have a statutory obligation to support their mother under s. 32 of the Family Law Act.

The court held that, although the Succession Law Reform Act does not expressly provide a mechanism to add such parties, the principles reflected in the Family Law Act and Family Law Rules support adding persons who may share a support obligation.

The court concluded that the applicant’s adult children may have an obligation to provide support and should therefore be added as parties to ensure all potentially responsible parties are before the court.

The applicant spouse brought a motion seeking interim spousal and child support, enforcement of a prior case conference order requiring financial disclosure and property appraisal, and potential sale of the matrimonial home.

The court declined to determine retroactive spousal support on the limited record but ordered prospective interim spousal support based on the respondent’s estimated reduced income from a new business venture.

Child support was ordered for one child whom the respondent had treated as his own despite not being the biological parent, while entitlement for another child was left contingent on proof of full-time educational attendance.

The court also ordered compliance timelines for financial disclosure, confirmation of insurance beneficiary designation, appraisal of the matrimonial home, and confirmation of health benefits coverage.

In a divorce proceeding, the respondent spouse sought a lump‑sum spousal support award to be satisfied through division of the applicant’s pension after the applicant’s post‑separation bankruptcy eliminated any potential equalization payment.

The court held that an equalization claim constitutes a provable debt in bankruptcy and is extinguished upon discharge unless the stay is lifted during the bankruptcy process.

The respondent had knowledge of the bankruptcy but failed to take timely steps to lift the stay and therefore could not indirectly pursue equalization through a lump‑sum spousal support award.

The court rejected compensatory and unjust enrichment claims but awarded limited periodic spousal support due to economic hardship caused by joint debts addressed through a consumer proposal.

Support was ordered to commence when the applicant resumed employment or received long‑term disability benefits and to terminate on December 31, 2015.

The appellant owned a family camp property.

The respondent, her former son-in-law, had occupied, maintained, and improved the camp for over 20 years.

When the respondent refused to allow his son to use the camp, the appellant attempted to revoke his licence to occupy it.

The trial judge found that the respondent had an equitable right to use the camp during his lifetime based on proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment, and granted an exclusive licence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no error in the trial judge's application of equitable principles or his choice of remedy.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal of an action.

The court considered the established factors for setting aside such dismissals, including explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.

While the court accepted that these four factors generally favoured the plaintiff, it considered the additional factor of the merits of the action where the evidence was clear and unchallenged.

The court found that a previously executed full and final release barred the plaintiff’s claims against the defendants relating to an earlier action and a prior court order.

As a result, the claim lacked merit and the administrative dismissal would not be set aside.

The appellant father appealed a Superior Court of Justice order dismissing his claim for custody and continuing an existing Ontario Court of Justice custody order with a scheduled review.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on jurisdictional grounds, finding that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to vary the existing Ontario Court of Justice order.

The proper procedure would have been a motion to change in the Ontario Court of Justice, followed by a request for consolidation and transfer.

The Court of Appeal declined to use its powers under the Courts of Justice Act to retroactively cure the jurisdictional defect through a double transfer.

Although the appeal was allowed on jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal noted that the trial judge did not err in his substantive analysis of the children's best interests or in ordering a review.

The original Ontario Court of Justice order continues to govern.

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion to change a consent order requiring payment of child and spousal support following the breakdown of a common-law relationship.

The applicant alleged that a prior assault by the respondent caused injuries rendering her incapable of remunerative employment and entitling her to continued spousal support despite the short duration of the relationship.

The court held that the applicant bore the onus of establishing that her alleged incapacity was caused by the assault.

Medical evidence did not establish on a balance of probabilities that the injuries were attributable to the assault or that the applicant was incapable of employment.

Child support was terminated retroactively to December 31, 2010, and spousal support was terminated effective May 31, 2013.

Family law trial addressing custody, access, child support, spousal support, equalization of net family property, and sale of matrimonial real estate following separation.

The court granted the mother sole custody of the child and established a graduated access schedule for the father beginning with supervised access and transitioning to unsupervised weekend access.

Retroactive child support and spousal support were denied because the father's share of rental profits retained by the mother since separation was sufficient to offset those obligations, though ongoing guideline child support was ordered based on imputed income.

The parties were ordered to sell jointly owned real properties with proceeds applied to debts and then divided equally, subject to an equalization payment from the father.

The father was also ordered to sign passport documentation for the child subject to notice restrictions on relocation.

A costs decision following a family law trial involving child support, extraordinary expenses, and equalization of net family property.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs based on several settlement offers under Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that none of the offers were bettered at trial and therefore did not trigger Rule 18 consequences.

Although trial success was divided between the parties, the court found the applicant had behaved unreasonably during the proceedings by failing to properly disclose income, failing to support the children adequately after separation, and disregarding a court order.

As a result, the applicant was disentitled from claiming costs despite partial success, and the respondent was awarded costs.

The parties separated after 12.5 years of marriage and resolved custody and access of their three children.

At trial, the court determined the applicant's income for child support purposes, imputing additional income due to undisclosed earnings from various side businesses.

The court ordered retroactive child support and found that the children's extensive athletic and musical activities qualified as Section 7 extraordinary expenses, requiring proportionate contribution from the applicant.

The court also valued the matrimonial home, accounting for necessary roof repairs, and calculated the equalization of net family properties, applying various set-offs against the equalization payment owed by the respondent.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the action as statute‑barred, the defendants sought costs.

The plaintiffs argued costs should be denied because the court had found the defendants committed a fraud or misrepresentation in the underlying real estate transaction.

The court held that, despite sympathy for the plaintiffs, the action had been commenced outside the applicable limitation period and should not have been brought so late.

Costs therefore followed the result, though the defendants’ claimed partial indemnity costs were reduced.

The court fixed partial indemnity fees at 66 percent of the full indemnity amount, with HST applied and disbursements allowed as claimed.

The plaintiffs commenced an action alleging misrepresentation in connection with the purchase of a residential property, claiming the vendors falsely represented that the property had no flooding, water issues, or prior renovations.

Evidence showed that the purchasers discovered moisture, rot, and structural concerns within the first two years after closing.

The defendants raised a limitation defence under the Limitations Act.

The court held that the purchasers had sufficient knowledge of material facts to trigger discoverability well before the action was issued, and that reasonable inquiry would have revealed the alleged misrepresentation earlier.

The action was therefore statute‑barred.

The plaintiff built a camp on an island partially owned by his former mother-in-law, the defendant.

After the plaintiff and the defendant's daughter separated, the plaintiff continued to use and maintain the camp exclusively for 20 years.

When the defendant attempted to terminate his use of the camp, the plaintiff brought an action claiming ownership or equitable relief.

The court found that while the camp was a fixture belonging to the realty, the plaintiff established claims for unjust enrichment and proprietary estoppel.

The court granted the plaintiff a constructive trust and a personal licence to occupy the camp for his lifetime, provided he maintains it and pays associated costs.

The respondent parent brought a motion for contempt alleging that the other parent failed to comply with prior custody and access orders by influencing the parties’ children not to visit her.

The responding parent argued the children independently refused access and threatened to run away if forced to return.

The court held that contempt proceedings require clear and reliable evidence and found the record insufficient to determine the reasons for the children’s refusal.

The court ordered the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to obtain further information regarding the children’s circumstances.

The contempt motion was adjourned pending that involvement.

The defendants in an elder abuse and property dispute action brought a third-party claim against the plaintiffs' children, alleging they had maliciously meddled in the family relationship and turned the plaintiffs against the defendants.

The third parties moved to strike the claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the motion, holding that the law of torts does not regulate family interactions or compensate for bruised feelings, and noted that the tort of alienation of affection was abolished in Ontario in 1978.

The court determined the issue of costs following a family law decision in which both parties claimed entitlement to costs.

The court found that success was divided between the parties.

Although the applicant had served multiple offers to settle, the court concluded that the offers did not materially affect the costs analysis because the applicant matched only one of the offers while failing to match the others.

In the circumstances, the court exercised its discretion to decline awarding costs to either party.

The parties, who were never married, separated and signed a separation agreement giving primary residence to the applicant mother.

The respondent father later retired from the Armed Forces, moved to Sudbury, and sought custody of the children or a reduction in child support.

The applicant sought to set aside the separation agreement, claiming duress and lack of disclosure regarding the respondent's pension.

The court dismissed the application to set aside the agreement, finding it was negotiated with counsel and based on the applicant's own counterproposal.

The court also dismissed the respondent's claim for custody, maintaining the status quo to avoid disrupting the children, but ordered a review due to concerns about school absenteeism.

Child support was temporarily reduced based on the respondent's pension income, with a warning that income would be imputed if he did not secure employment.