Leonard Levencrown

The City of Ottawa, acting as Service Manager under the Housing Services Act, 2011, sought an order to enforce its appointment of an interim board of directors for Coopérative d’habitation Voisins Inc. and to compel the former directors (Respondents) to surrender Co-op property and records.

The Co-op was in a state of governance paralysis with competing boards and a frozen bank account, leading to an inability to pay its debts.

The court found that the City's intervention was justified under the Act's provisions for immediate action when a housing provider is unable to meet its financial obligations, despite the Respondents' arguments regarding insufficient notice and alleged bias.

The court declared the City-appointed board legally constituted and issued a mandatory order for the Respondents to cooperate.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) sought judgment against Daniel and Colleen Bedard for fraudulent misrepresentation related to a loan for a 57-foot Carver motor boat.

RBC alleged the Bedards misrepresented their purchase of the 57 Carver to secure the loan, but used the funds to pay for a 72-foot Marquis and to lend to Crate Marine Sales Limited.

The Bedards denied the claims and counterclaimed for all monthly loan payments made.

The court found that the Bedards, with Crate's assistance, fraudulently misrepresented the purpose of the loan and their ownership of the 57 Carver.

The Bedards never took possession of the 57 Carver, and the loan proceeds were used for other undisclosed purposes, leading to the defeat of RBC's security interest.

The court granted judgment to RBC for the outstanding loan balance and partial legal costs, dismissing the Bedards' counterclaim.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an order for three consecutive weeks of summer holiday time with his daughter, including permission to travel to Germany.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing for a delay pending a clinician's report from the Ontario Children's Lawyer (OCL) and a suspension of summer access.

The court denied the father's request for international travel and restricted summer access to one-week non-consecutive periods, pending the OCL report.

The decision was based on the child's best interest, considering the high level of parental acrimony, conflicting affidavit evidence regarding the child's relationship with the father, and a recent incident during an access visit.

The court emphasized the value of the OCL report in ascertaining the truth and guiding decisions on parenting time.

The defendant moved for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) against the corporate plaintiff.

The court found good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario, as it had sold all its assets and receivables to a non-party.

The plaintiff argued that the non-party purchaser should be permitted to provide an undertaking for costs instead of posting actual security.

The court rejected this argument, distinguishing prior case law, and ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in instalments totaling $38,330.

The applicant brought a motion to change a previous support order, arguing a material change in circumstances due to a change in employment and reduction in income.

The respondent opposed, seeking to impute income to the applicant, retroactive section 7 expenses, and a finding of contempt regarding the division of household contents.

The court found a material change in circumstances and adjusted child and spousal support for 2016, 2017, and ongoing from 2018 based on the applicant's actual and projected incomes.

The court declined to impute income, finding the applicant was not intentionally underemployed.

The court also dispensed with the respondent's consent to list a jointly owned cottage for sale, dismissed the contempt motion, and declined to order security for support.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support and contribution to special expenses.

The parties had previously executed a comprehensive separation agreement that terminated spousal support on January 1, 2017.

The applicant argued the agreement was unfair and failed to meet the objectives of the Divorce Act.

The court dismissed the motion for temporary spousal support, finding insufficient evidence to conduct a stage II Miglin analysis on an interim basis, noting the applicant's current income and that her financial difficulties largely stemmed from a failed business venture.

Following a trial decision, the court held a hearing to determine the retroactive spousal and child support owed by the applicant for the years 2012 to 2015.

The primary issue was calculating the parties' respective incomes, which was complicated by a family trust that allocated capital gains and interest income.

After reviewing expert accounting reports on the tax treatment of the trust distributions, the court determined the parties' incomes for each year, calculated the support payable to achieve a 60% net disposable income ratio for the respondent, and ordered the applicant to pay $68,141.63 in retroactive support arrears.

The parties separated after a 20-year marriage.

The husband, a high-income earner, recently negotiated a transition agreement ending his employment at the end of 2016, reducing his income.

The wife, who had been a stay-at-home mother and worked part-time as a supply teacher, sought spousal and child support based on his previous higher income.

The court accepted the husband's projected 2016 income of $433,621, imputed an income of $20,000 to the wife, and ordered child support for three children (increasing to four when the eldest returns).

Spousal support was set at 60% of the Net Disposable Income.

The court declined to order a review of support at the end of 2016 and allowed the husband to continue managing the children's trust funds.

The parties separated after a 31-year traditional marriage.

The applicant sought an equalization of net family property, spousal support, and a vesting order against a property owned by the respondent's corporation.

The court imputed an income of $50,000 to the respondent due to unreported cash income from his taxi business and non-compliance with financial disclosure.

The court ordered an equalization payment of $168,132.53 and a lump sum spousal support payment of $50,000.

Due to the respondent's history of defying court orders, the court pierced the corporate veil and granted a vesting order over the corporately-owned property to satisfy the equalization payment.

The respondent brought a motion seeking suspension of both spousal and child support pending resolution of family property and financial issues, and an order for the sale of certain properties.

The applicant opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking reinstatement of support, an interim disbursement for a forensic accountant, and the addition of a third party co-owner of certain recreational properties.

The court held that disputes over alleged misuse of company funds, property sales, and household expenses were matters for equalization and financial accounting rather than grounds to suspend support obligations.

The court also found the third-party co-owner should be added to assist in resolving property-related financial issues.

The request to suspend support was dismissed and the parties were ordered to retain an accountant to analyze their financial affairs.

Following a motion in which the applicant obtained interim spousal support, the court determined costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant sought $10,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the respondent acted unreasonably in denying entitlement to spousal support.

The court held the respondent’s unsuccessful legal argument did not amount to bad faith or unreasonable conduct.

Applying the presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs and considering proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded partial indemnity costs.

Following a five‑day family law trial involving the validity of a marriage contract, spousal support, and child support, the court determined costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the respondent was completely successful in defending the validity of the marriage contract, which consumed most of the trial, while success on spousal support was divided and the respondent was more successful on child support.

Both parties were found to have behaved unreasonably during the litigation, including unfounded allegations regarding the contract and failures of financial disclosure.

Applying proportionality and the factors in subrule 24(11), the court assessed partial indemnity costs across the issues.

A net costs award was ordered in favour of the respondent.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support and to amend her application to include a claim under the Divorce Act.

The parties had divorced in 1987 but resumed cohabitation in 1990 for 23 years.

The respondent argued the claim was statute-barred and the court lacked jurisdiction.

The court found the applicant met the definition of a spouse under the Family Law Act due to the lengthy post-divorce cohabitation and could also claim as a former spouse under the Divorce Act.

The court granted leave to amend the pleadings and ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $1,500 per month.

In a family law motion arising from separation after a long marriage with four children, the applicant sought interim custody, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, spousal and child support, interim disbursements, and other relief.

The parties had entered a marriage contract waiving spousal support, but the court found that circumstances since the contract—particularly the birth of four children and the applicant’s extended absence from the workforce as primary caregiver—rendered the waiver inapplicable for interim purposes.

Applying Miglin principles, the court held the spousal support waiver invalid with respect to interim support and ordered monthly interim spousal support.

The court also granted the applicant interim custody, established access for the respondent, ordered child support based on an income of $250,000, granted exclusive possession of the matrimonial home to the applicant, and ordered interim funds for legal and valuation expenses.

The appellants, adult independent children of the deceased, appealed a trial decision dismissing their application to set aside their father's will.

The deceased left his entire estate to his daughter-in-law.

The appellants argued the deceased had a moral obligation to provide for them.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that Ontario law does not recognize a moral obligation to provide for independent adult children that can displace a competent testator's autonomous distribution of property.

The respondent opposed a motion by the payor parent seeking termination of child support obligations for adult children pursuing post-secondary education.

The court considered whether an employment severance payment should be included in the payor’s income for child support purposes and whether new academic evidence concerning one child’s post-secondary progress should be admitted.

The court held that severance payments functioning as income replacement are properly included in income for child support calculations.

Support for one child was ordered to continue temporarily until a fixed termination date to allow completion of studies, while support for another child continued because the evidentiary record regarding post-secondary plans was incomplete.

Retroactive section 7 expense contributions were also ordered and a nominal costs award was granted.

The father brought a motion to change a previous order, seeking to terminate child support for two adult children, arguing they were no longer in school and were alienated from him.

The mother opposed, seeking continued support, retroactive support based on the father's increased income, and payment of section 7 expenses.

The court found no alienation and held that one child, despite slow progress due to a social anxiety disorder, remained a child of the marriage.

Support for the second child was suspended pending documentary proof of progress in his college program.

The father was also ordered to pay retroactive support and his share of section 7 expenses.

Following dismissal of a motion brought by a claimant in insolvency proceedings, the joint official liquidators sought costs on a substantial‑indemnity basis.

The court considered the principles governing costs under Rule 57 and the Court of Appeal’s guidance that costs awards should be fair and reasonable rather than reflective of full indemnity.

Although the motion had been unsuccessful and described by the liquidators as frivolous, the court found the surrounding proceedings involved confusion and unresolved issues concerning entitlement to assets in multiple jurisdictions.

The court therefore declined to award substantial‑indemnity costs and instead ordered partial‑indemnity costs.

The amount claimed was reduced due to the use of two lawyers for a straightforward motion.

The respondent husband brought a motion to vary spousal support provisions contained in Final Minutes of Settlement following a significant decline in his income from self-employment.

The court considered whether arrears of support barred the motion, whether the Divorce Act or the Family Law Act governed, and whether a material change in circumstances had occurred.

Interpreting the settlement agreement, the court held that a material change tied to income or employment was contemplated by the parties and that the respondent’s approximately 50% decline in business income constituted such a change.

The court varied the support order and directed that spousal support be recalculated using the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines to equalize the parties’ net disposable income, subject to specified adjustments.

Following a successful family law motion, the applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the respondent had acted in bad faith by willfully disobeying a prior court order requiring payment of property taxes, thereby placing the matrimonial home at risk of municipal tax sale.

The respondent also failed to provide affidavit evidence explaining his non-compliance and did not respond to the applicant’s costs submissions.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that the respondent’s conduct warranted full recovery costs.

Costs were fixed and ordered payable forthwith.