Leighann Rachel Burns

The Mother brought a motion to find the Father in contempt for failing to comply with a 2018 court order requiring him to disclose his IP addresses, cell phone numbers, and email addresses.

The court found the Father in contempt, noting his intentional refusal to provide the IP addresses despite having the ability to do so.

After the Father failed to purge his contempt, the court imposed a $2,500 fine, ordered him not to denigrate the Mother online, dispensed with his consent for the Mother to obtain third-party disclosure regarding malicious online posts, and ordered him to pay $5,500 in costs.

The applicant father sought to enforce an access order and brought a motion for assessment and directions, while the respondent mother brought a cross-motion for a restraining order and reports.

The court dismissed the respondent's cross-motion and provided directions to implement the access order.

This endorsement specifically addresses the costs of that motion, finding the applicant partially successful and awarding him $2000 in costs, payable after trial from the proceeds of the matrimonial home.

The court found the respondent's actions frustrated the previous access order.

This endorsement concerns the costs of an eight-day family law trial involving custody, access, child support, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The Respondent, Ms. Thomson, was largely successful at trial and sought costs.

The Applicant, Mr. Piacenti, did not provide submissions on costs.

The court awarded Ms. Thomson $90,000.00 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, finding her entitled to full recovery due to her comprehensive and favourable offers to settle, Mr. Piacenti's unreasonable conduct throughout the proceedings (including non-disclosure and delays), the importance of the issues, and the reasonableness of her counsel's hourly rate.

This high-conflict family law case addressed issues of custody, access, child support, and division of property.

The court granted the divorce, awarded sole custody of the child to the Respondent mother, and established a revised access schedule for the Applicant father, including mid-week overnight access.

The father's income was imputed to $35,000 for child support purposes, and retroactive child support was ordered.

The matrimonial home was ordered to be sold, with net proceeds and an equalization payment to the mother.

A restraining order sought by the mother was denied due to insufficient evidence of recent abuse.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after a tumultuous relationship.

Following separation, the respondent engaged in a campaign of criminal harassment against the applicant, resulting in a criminal conviction, probation, and supervised access.

At trial, the court considered whether to loosen access restrictions.

The court granted the applicant sole custody and ordered a phased expansion of the respondent's access, subject to strict conditions including anger management and drug/alcohol assessments.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay ongoing child support of $776.80 per month and maintained his existing arrears.

The matter was scheduled for trial but the parties agreed to use the time for a settlement conference instead.

On the second day, the self-represented applicant abruptly withdrew from the settlement conference and demanded to proceed to trial, requesting orders for disclosure and a psychiatric assessment of the respondent.

The court found the applicant used the settlement conference to derail the trial and acted in bad faith.

Costs of $1,864.50 were awarded to the respondent on a full recovery basis pursuant to Rules 24(7) and 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant sought costs following the respondent's unsuccessful motion to change, where the court had dismissed the respondent's request to vary child support and imputed income to him.

The court found the applicant was the successful party on the majority of issues, particularly the financial issues, which were complex due to the respondent's deliberate attempts to mislead the court about his income.

The court determined the respondent acted in bad faith by consciously attempting to conceal his actual income to reduce his child support obligation.

Considering the applicant's success and the respondent's bad faith, the court ordered the respondent to pay $20,000 in costs, with $10,000 enforceable as child support through the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant and respondent, divorced parents of two children, brought cross-motions to change a prior divorce order regarding child support and access.

The respondent sought to vary child support obligations retroactively, terminate life insurance security, and modify access, citing a material change in circumstances due to health issues and reduced income.

The applicant opposed these variations and sought to restrict the respondent's travel with the children due to flight risk concerns.

The court found the respondent not credible regarding his income and lifestyle, imputing an income of $82,000 for most years, except for 2015 where a reduced income was imputed due to health.

The court dismissed the respondent's request to vary child support arrears and penalty clauses.

It also denied the respondent's request for international travel with the children, confining access to Canada due to flight risk, but increased the respondent's regular and summer access time.

The obligation for life insurance was replaced with a first charge on the respondent's estate.

Following a prior finding of contempt of court in a family law proceeding, the court conducted a sanctions hearing to determine the appropriate penalty.

The respondent had failed to comply with prior court orders, including disclosure obligations and payment of previously ordered costs.

The court imposed a short custodial sentence for contempt and ordered payment of outstanding and new costs.

The court further directed that the respondent’s pleadings would be automatically struck if costs were not paid within the specified time and ordered completion of remaining disclosure.

The applicant brought contempt motions alleging that the respondent failed to comply with disclosure obligations and misled the court regarding ownership of property pledged as security for child support arrears.

The court applied the established three‑part test for civil contempt, requiring a clear and unequivocal order, deliberate breach, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evidence showed the respondent had sold the property more than a year before representing to the court that he still owned it and agreeing to secure support payments with it.

The court found that the respondent deliberately misled the court and failed to comply with the order securing child support.

A finding of contempt was entered and a separate hearing on sanctions was scheduled.