Lisa Irene Bombardieri

This decision addresses urgent motions regarding the residential schedule of four children, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and a proposed nesting arrangement following the separation of Laura Anne Fennema and Trevor William Harry Fennema.

The court found the parenting time issues urgent due to the children’s removal from their home and school, but dismissed other requests for lack of urgency.

The court declined to order exclusive possession or nesting, primarily because of the Applicant’s criminal release conditions and the practicalities of the family farm.

The court ordered the children’s immediate return to their home with the Respondent and set a detailed interim parenting schedule, emphasizing the children’s best interests and stability.

The Applicant sought full recovery costs of $297,615.08 following a successful trial where the Respondents were found to have acted in bad faith and lied under oath.

The court found that full recovery costs were warranted under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules due to the Respondents' bad faith conduct, and alternatively under Rule 18(14) due to the Applicant's favourable offers to settle.

However, the court reduced the quantum of costs to $150,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST, finding the requested amount disproportionate to the financial outcome and considering the Applicant's partial success on some issues.

Both Respondents were held jointly and severally liable for the costs.

The respondent husband sought costs following his successful motion to list the jointly-owned matrimonial home for sale.

The husband requested full indemnity costs of $7,397.30, arguing he beat his offer to settle and the applicant wife acted in bad faith.

The court found the husband was presumptively entitled to costs and met the criteria under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

However, because the husband's bill of costs lacked individual time dockets to separate fees incurred after the offer, and the wife's conduct did not amount to bad faith, the court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The wife was ordered to pay costs fixed at $5,548.00.

The respondent husband brought a motion for an order to list the jointly-owned matrimonial home for sale under the Partition Act.

The applicant wife opposed the motion, citing health issues, attachment to the community, and alleged oppression by the husband, despite having previously consented to the sale.

The court granted the motion, finding that the sale would not prejudice the wife's substantive family law rights and that her reasons for opposing did not overcome the husband's prima facie right to have the asset sold.

The applicant sought to set aside a binding agreement in principle regarding the transfer and sale of franchised restaurants, claiming lack of disclosure and frustration of contract due to the franchisor's requirements.

The applicant also sought interim spousal and child support.

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the application.

The court found that the applicant had access to competent legal and financial advice during negotiations and that there was no significant lack of disclosure.

The court also held that the franchisor's requirements did not frustrate the contract.

Applying the Miglin framework, the court found the agreement remained consistent with the objectives of the Divorce Act.

The court granted the respondent's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the application.

This is a costs decision in a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding in need of protection for two children based on exposure to high-conflict parental separation and the father's refusal to consent to recommended medical treatment.

The mother sought costs against the father, alleging bad faith and unreasonable conduct that prolonged the proceedings over six court appearances spanning several months.

The court found the father's conduct to be persistently and extraordinarily unreasonable, including filing excessive and irrelevant affidavit material, maintaining a meritless legal argument, failing to attend trial management conferences, and using access negotiations as leverage in the costs dispute.

The court awarded costs to the mother on a partial indemnity basis.

The parties could not agree on the terms of orders flowing from previous endorsements regarding support arrears, requiring the court to issue a further endorsement.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs, arguing the applicant acted in bad faith by attempting to enforce unascertainable arrears through the Family Responsibility Office despite the court's clear prior rulings.

The court found that the applicant's conduct amounted to bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, as she sought to relitigate the issue of arrears without reasonable justification.

Consequently, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $5,214.95.

The respondent husband sought leave to appeal an interim order requiring him to pay retroactive spousal support of $25,894 per month.

He argued there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the order because the motion judge failed to consider the tax implications of retroactive support, which might not be deductible.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the interim nature of the order meant the trial judge retained discretion to adjust the support amount upwards or downwards to address any unfair tax consequences.

The applicant father sought to reduce his child support obligation and rescind outstanding arrears based on a material change in circumstances following his loss of employment as a probation officer due to criminal convictions for impaired driving.

The respondent mother opposed the variation.

The court found that although the father's income had decreased, he was not entitled to a variation because: (1) his job loss resulted from his own misconduct; (2) he failed to make genuine efforts to obtain alternative employment; (3) he failed to comply with court orders for financial disclosure; and (4) he had not acted in good faith.

The court imputed income to the father at his historical salary of $70,941.00 and dismissed the motion to change, refusing to reduce or rescind the outstanding arrears.