Lisa Rose Baumal

The Respondent brought a motion to change seeking to terminate or reduce spousal support and life insurance obligations based on his retirement.

The Applicant cross-moved for retroactive spousal support and child support for an adult disabled child.

The court granted the Respondent's motion in part, reducing spousal support from $7,000 to $1,021 per month effective January 1, 2025, and maintaining a reduced life insurance obligation of $250,000.

The Applicant's cross-motion for retroactive spousal support adjustment and retroactive/ongoing child support for the adult disabled child was denied, as the child's needs were met by social assistance and existing assets, and the Applicant did not demonstrate need for retroactive support given her assets and the Respondent's financial hardship.

The applicant sought interim spousal support of $1,250 per month for a fixed two-year period, arguing for a departure from the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAGs).

The respondent opposed, arguing no entitlement or support within the SSAG range ($206-$274).

The court found entitlement based on non-compensatory need due to the applicant's financial disadvantage from moving to Canada for the marriage and her current lack of income while pursuing a dental hygiene program.

The court exercised its discretion to depart from the SSAGs, ordering interim spousal support of $850 per month for a fixed period until May 1, 2026, along with other financial provisions.

The respondent wife brought a motion to strike the applicant husband's application due to his repeated failure to comply with multiple disclosure orders in their divorce proceedings concerning financial matters, spousal support, child support, and equalization of net family property.

While the court found the applicant's non-compliance wilful, it declined to strike the pleadings immediately due to recent, albeit late, disclosure.

Instead, the court ordered the applicant to provide specific outstanding financial disclosure within strict timelines, including a business valuation, updated financial statements, and tax returns.

Failure to comply with certain orders would result in the abandonment of related claims, and the respondent was granted leave to bring a further urgent motion to strike if the applicant failed to meet the new deadlines.

The applicant sought a restraining order against the second respondent, who is the applicant's aunt and the first respondent's current spouse.

The second respondent moved to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction.

The court found that it lacked jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act to grant a restraining order where no parenting orders were in place or sought, and no child was subject to the proceeding.

The court dismissed the applicant's claim against the second respondent.

This decision addresses costs arising from motions concerning the lifting of a stay order and the imposition of pre-conditions, including security for costs.

The court found divided success but determined the father (respondent) was more successful as meaningful pre-conditions were ordered for the mother (applicant) to lift the stay, particularly regarding her long-standing failure to provide financial disclosure.

The mother's unreasonable conduct in failing to provide adequate financial disclosure led to additional costs.

The court awarded the father $3,600 in costs, payable monthly, with 50% ($1,800) designated as support and enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant mother sought to lift a stay on her Motion to Change parenting and support terms, and to amend her motion to seek primary residence of the child.

The respondent father opposed lifting the stay and sought security for costs, or alternatively, pre-conditions including payment of outstanding costs and child support, and financial disclosure.

The court dismissed the father's request for security for costs, finding the mother's claim not to be a nuisance or waste of time, especially given the child's best interests.

However, the court imposed strict pre-conditions for lifting the stay, requiring the mother to provide comprehensive financial disclosure and pay outstanding costs and child support arrears within 120 days, citing her history of non-compliance and lack of financial transparency.

The court emphasized balancing the child's right to be heard with fairness to the father.

The Applicant Father sought decision-making responsibility for the parties' child's vaccinations.

The Respondent Mother opposed, arguing she was uniquely suited due to her chiropractic background and research, and raising concerns about the child's genetics and potential adverse reactions.

The court qualified the Applicant's medical experts (pediatrician/geneticist and pediatric infectious disease specialist) but rejected the Respondent's proposed experts due to lack of relevant expertise, novel science reliability issues, and bias.

The court found the child to be in good health with no contraindications to vaccination and determined the Applicant's approach of consulting medical professionals was in the child's best interest.

The Applicant Father was granted sole decision-making responsibility for all vaccinations, including the Covid-19 vaccine.

The respondent (mother) brought a temporary motion for child and spousal support, seeking to impute income of $96,000 to the applicant (father).

The father, a self-represented paralegal, failed to provide adequate financial disclosure and exhibited inconsistencies in his stated income and expenses.

The court imputed income of $96,000 to the father due to his lack of transparency and the discrepancy between his claimed income and lifestyle.

The court found the mother was unable to work due to her own health issues and the significant care needs of their three children.

Child support and spousal support were ordered based on the imputed income, with the father receiving a credit for some direct payments.

The court declined to order further disclosure from the mother given the father's non-compliance.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support.

The parties disputed the separation date, the applicant's employment status (fired vs. quit), and the respondent's true income.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie case for entitlement, noting her financial disadvantage post-separation and the prior "homemade" interim support arrangement.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on corporate expenses and benefits, finding his reported salary did not reflect his true financial benefit.

Interim spousal support was ordered for the applicant.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking resumption of court-ordered access to his child, make-up access, permission to amend his response to seek sole custody, transfer of residence if access continued to be denied, police enforcement of access, disclosure of Children's Aid records, and costs.

The respondent mother had denied all access since September 16, 2018, claiming the child had made allegations of mistreatment.

The Children's Aid Society investigated but did not verify the allegations.

The court found the mother in breach of the April 25, 2017 order and applied Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to impose sanctions.

The court granted make-up access on specified dates, permission to amend the response, and allowed the applicant to serve the Children's Aid Societies for disclosure.

This is a costs decision following an eight-day trial concerning parenting and child support arrangements for a six-year-old child.

The respondent (father) sought costs of $20,377, while the applicant (mother) requested no costs be ordered.

The court found the father was substantially successful on custody, incidents of custody, and child support issues, with divided success on access issues.

The court awarded costs of $15,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable at $250 per month starting July 1, 2018, with $3,000 designated as support enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The court considered the father's reasonable behaviour, the mother's unreasonable conduct including breaches of court orders and failure to pay child support, and the mother's ability to access significant litigation funding despite claiming financial hardship.

This was a motion to change a custody and access order following a material change in circumstances.

The mother sought a parallel parenting arrangement with final decision-making authority over medical and religious matters, while the father sought sole custody with supervised access for the mother.

The child, who has autism, had been transferred to the father's care in January 2016 after the mother engaged in a pattern of unfounded allegations against the father and breached court orders.

The court found that the mother had made significant gains in insight and conduct since the custody transfer, but that a joint or parallel parenting arrangement remained unworkable due to poor communication, lack of trust, and the mother's ongoing credibility issues.

The court granted sole custody to the father with gradually increasing unsupervised access to the mother, subject to specific conditions designed to protect the child from exposure to parental conflict and false allegations.

This was a motion to change a custody and access order following a material change in circumstances.

The mother sought a parallel parenting arrangement with final decision-making authority over medical and religious matters, while the father sought sole custody with supervised access for the mother.

The child, who has autism, had been transferred to the father's care in January 2016 after the mother engaged in a pattern of unfounded allegations against the father and breached court orders.

The court found that the mother had made significant gains in insight and conduct since the custody transfer, but that a joint or parallel parenting arrangement remained unworkable due to poor communication, lack of trust, and the mother's ongoing credibility issues.

The court granted sole custody to the father with gradually increasing unsupervised access to the mother, subject to specific conditions designed to protect the child from exposure to parental conflict and false allegations.

The respondent mother sought full indemnity costs of $12,650.47 for a motion regarding child support and access.

The applicant father argued no costs should be ordered.

The court found the mother was largely successful on financial issues, particularly regarding the imputation of income for child support purposes.

The court fixed costs at $10,000.00 payable within 60 days, representing a fair and reasonable amount considering the mother's success, the father's unreasonable position on income, and the factors under Family Law Rule 24.

The decision includes an addendum addressing alleged errors in the original endorsement regarding access terms and disclosure obligations.

The applicant sought costs against a former lawyer for the respondent in a family law matter concerning custody of a child.

The applicant claimed the lawyer should have notified him that he was no longer representing the respondent and should have either ensured a Notice of Change in Representation was filed or brought a motion to be removed as solicitor of record.

The applicant argued this would have allowed him to arrange an adjournment in advance and avoid wasting legal fees.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the lawyer's conduct fell short of professional standards, it did not cause the costs to be incurred without reasonable cause.

The adjournment was caused by the respondent's failure to prepare for the conference, not the lawyer's actions or omissions.

The court determined custody and access for the parties' five-year-old son.

The father sought sole custody due to the mother's untreated psychiatric illness (delusional disorder) and inconsistent access attendance.

The mother denied the diagnosis and sought joint custody.

The court found it was in the child's best interests to award sole custody to the father with supervised access to the mother, given the mother's refusal of recommended treatment and other concerns regarding her living arrangements and participation in the OCL investigation.

The existing restraining order against the mother was terminated.

The Children's Aid Society sought a temporary care and custody order for two young children following their apprehension.

The mother opposed the application and sought dismissal or alternative placements with herself or her mother.

The father sought placement with himself or his mother.

The court applied the two-part test under section 51(3) of the Child and Family Services Act and found reasonable grounds to believe the children would suffer harm if returned to either parent and that they could not be adequately protected by supervision orders.

The court placed the children in the temporary care of the society with supervised access to the mother and no access to the father pending further order.