Linda Joe

The respondent father sought $11,714.26 in full indemnity costs of a case conference and motion that settled before argument.

The terms of settlement were similar to the father's offer to settle.

The applicant mother opposed the request and sought no costs award.

The court found that success was divided, as the parties were virtually ad idem on the date the mother was required to respond to the father's offer.

The court determined that the father's response to the mother's counteroffer was disproportionate to the minor remaining issues in dispute.

The court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

In this high-conflict family law trial, the court determined custody and access arrangements for three children following the separation of unmarried parents.

The mother sought sole custody with the children residing in Scarborough; the father sought sole custody with the children residing in Oakville.

The court found both parents had significant parenting deficits and were engaged in a toxic relationship.

The mother was actively undermining the children's relationship with their father through alienating conduct, including telling the oldest child the father was not her biological father and changing the middle child's name.

The father had chronic housing and employment instability, having been evicted multiple times.

The court ordered joint custody with a shared residential schedule, with the children residing primarily with the mother during school weeks in Scarborough to ensure housing stability, while maintaining regular contact with the father.

The court emphasized that the mother's alienating conduct must cease or she risked losing custody.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of two children and permission to relocate with them from Ontario to Okotoks, Alberta.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought joint or shared custody with the children remaining in Ontario.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer investigated and recommended the children remain in Ontario.

The court applied the best interests of the child test and found that the applicant failed to discharge her burden of proving the proposed move was in the children's best interests.

The court granted the applicant sole custody conditional on her remaining in Ontario within 100 km of Oakville, with the custody reverting to the respondent if she relocated beyond that radius without consent or court order.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated after a five-and-a-half-year cohabitation and brief marriage.

They have two young children.

The applicant sought sole or joint custody, while the respondent sought sole custody.

The court found a history of domestic violence by the applicant and high conflict between the parties, making joint custody inappropriate.

Sole custody was awarded to the respondent, with generous access to the applicant.

The court imputed income to the applicant at $206,700 and to the respondent at $27,000.

The applicant was ordered to pay table child support and mid-range spousal support for a fixed period of five years.

The court also valued the applicant's business and other assets, resulting in an equalization payment of $91,056.10 owed by the respondent to the applicant.

The respondent (father) brought a motion to stay the proceeding based on a separation agreement's dispute resolution provisions requiring mediation/arbitration.

The applicant (mother) opposed the motion.

The court granted the stay on condition that mediation/arbitration before Mr. Philip Epstein be commenced.

The respondent sought costs on a full indemnity basis, citing his success on the motion and two Offers to Settle.

The court declined to award costs, finding that the presumption of costs for the successful party was rebutted by the respondent's conduct, including failure to pay appropriate child support since 2008, non-compliance with financial disclosure obligations, and the financial hardship an award would cause the mother and children.

The mother commenced an application seeking sole custody, increased child support, spousal support, and financial disclosure.

The father brought a motion to stay the proceedings pursuant to section 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, relying on a dispute resolution clause in the parties' separation agreement that required all disputes to be referred to a mediator/arbitrator.

The mother argued that the father's failure to comply with the agreement, including his refusal to provide financial disclosure, invalidated the arbitration clause.

The court held that the father's breach did not abrogate the separation agreement or the arbitration clause.

The court found that the relief claimed fell within the scope of the arbitration provision and that the mother failed to establish any exception under section 7(2) of the Arbitration Act.

The father's motion was granted and the application was stayed pending mediation/arbitration.