Lorna Yates

Following a multi-day family law trial concerning parenting decision-making, primary residence, and relocation, the court found the mother had persistently obstructed the children’s relationship with the father and failed to promote their best interests under the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The court granted the father sole decision-making responsibility, primary care and control, and authorized relocation of the children to Saudi Arabia, with structured parenting time, travel, communication, and document-control terms.

The court also imposed enforcement mechanisms including police enforcement under s. 36 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, mirror-order requirements, and financial security due to relocation to a non-Hague jurisdiction.

Claims for spousal support, retroactive support, and property/equalization relief were dismissed, and no present child support order was made against the mother under s. 10(2)(b) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The appellant, a self-represented litigant, brought a motion to stay the enforcement of child support provisions in a Divorce Order pending his appeal.

He also sought leave to file a factum exceeding the standard page limit and an extension of time to perfect the appeal.

The motions judge dismissed the request for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried and no irreparable harm.

However, given the complexity of the case and the appellant's self-represented status, the court granted leave to file a 40-page factum and extended the time for perfection.

The parties, parents to an eight-year-old boy, separated in 2022 following an incident of family violence.

The father sought increased parenting time and a corresponding reduction in child support, while the mother sought retroactive child support and proportionate sharing of various extracurricular activities as section 7 expenses.

The court found that increasing the father's parenting time was not in the child's best interests given the child's distress from the parents' conflict and need for stability.

The court ordered the father to pay child support arrears and determined which extracurricular activities qualified as extraordinary expenses to be shared proportionately.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final joint parenting order, seeking sole custody and decision-making authority due to the respondent father's failure to communicate regarding his housing instability and refusal to accommodate schedule changes.

The court found that while the father's communication lapses were problematic, they did not meet the threshold of a material change in circumstances under Gordon v. Goertz.

The request for sole custody was dismissed.

However, the court granted variations to the parenting schedule, including a week-about summer schedule to assist the mother with daycare costs, and finalized consent variations regarding the regular schedule and child/spousal support.

In a family law proceeding between unmarried cohabiting parties with two children, the respondent sought disclosure relating to the applicant’s assets and financial circumstances.

The respondent advanced a claim of unjust enrichment based on a joint family venture and requested valuation reports for corporate interests, stock options, and other assets, as well as a completed net family property statement to assess wealth accumulated during cohabitation.

The court held that meaningful disclosure was necessary to evaluate the alleged joint family venture and ordered the applicant to obtain valuations and complete the financial disclosure.

The court relied on the principles from Kerr v. Baranow concerning the sharing of wealth created during cohabitation.

Directions were also given regarding disclosure timelines, questioning, and further case management prior to settlement conference.

Following a family law trial concerning property division and support, the court determined costs after receiving written submissions.

The husband had made an offer to settle that was more favourable to the wife than the eventual judgment, engaging the presumptive entitlement to costs under the Family Law Rules and supporting substantial indemnity recovery.

Although the husband sought up to $792,447.47 in full recovery costs, the court found the claim disproportionate given the relatively brief and uncomplicated four‑day trial.

Applying the fairness and reasonableness principles from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council and reviewing comparable family law authorities, the court reduced the amount significantly.

The wife was ordered to pay $265,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, with payment tied to the sale of her home unless an undertaking was not provided.

In a high‑conflict custody dispute involving a proposed relocation of children from Ontario to Los Angeles, the moving party sought an order appointing private counsel for two children after the Office of the Children's Lawyer declined involvement due to timing constraints.

The responding party opposed the request, arguing that counsel appointment would reinforce parental influence and that an updated assessment should occur first.

The court held that it had jurisdiction under rule 4(7) of the Family Law Rules to authorize counsel for children and exercised its discretion to appoint separate lawyers on a limited mandate.

The appointed lawyers were directed only to determine and report the children's views and preferences regarding the proposed relocation, rather than to act with the full rights of a party.

The court emphasized that the narrow role was necessary to ensure the children's voices were heard within tight procedural timelines.

Following a long marriage with three children, the court determined property equalization, spousal support, and child support issues after the parties agreed on a parenting plan.

The primary dispute concerned valuation of significant real estate assets for net family property calculation.

The court preferred one expert appraisal over another and determined the values of the matrimonial home and a farm property, resulting in an equalization payment payable to the applicant.

Despite the long marriage and the applicant’s role as homemaker, spousal support was denied due to the applicant’s substantial assets and investment income.

Guideline child support was ordered based on the respondent’s reduced income following job loss, and the parties were required to share section 7 expenses equally.