Lorrie Stojni

The mother sought to relocate with the parties' four-year-old child from Cambridge to Ottawa to live with her new partner and their infant child.

The father opposed the relocation and sought shared parenting in Cambridge.

The court found that the father had perpetrated family violence against the mother and that the mother had been the child's primary caregiver for the vast majority of the time.

Applying the presumption under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court held that the father failed to meet his burden of proving the relocation was not in the child's best interests.

The court permitted the relocation, awarded the mother sole decision-making responsibility, and established a parenting schedule that included regular weekend and holiday time for the father.

The father was also ordered to pay ongoing and retroactive child support.

The mother sought permission to move the primary residence of the parties' eight-year-old child to Michigan to live with her fiancé.

The father opposed the move and brought a motion to change the existing parenting schedule to expand his parenting time and adjust child support.

The mother also sought a declaration that the father is a vexatious litigant.

The court found that the proposed move constituted a material change in circumstances but concluded that relocating to Michigan was not in the child's best interests, as it would disrupt the child's strong bonds with the father and extended family in Ontario.

The court dismissed the mother's request to relocate, dismissed the vexatious litigant claim, and adjusted the parenting schedule and section 7 expenses.

This addendum to a prior judgment finalized the calculation of retroactive spousal support, child support, and post-separation expense credits, resulting in a net payment to the applicant.

The court also determined the issue of costs, finding the applicant entitled to costs due to her success on substantive issues and reasonable attempts to settle.

An award of $90,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, was ordered to be paid to the applicant from the respondent's share of the matrimonial home proceeds.

Following a 25-year marriage, the parties proceeded to trial on issues of child and spousal support, income determination, reimbursement of expenses, and occupation rent.

The court imputed the applicant's income at $30,000 due to intentional under-employment and set the respondent's income at $171,398, denying his request to deduct employment expenses due to insufficient evidence.

The applicant was awarded indefinite spousal support of $3,600 per month and child support of $1,453 per month.

The respondent was awarded $16,576 for post-separation expenses, but his claim for occupation rent was dismissed as the circumstances were not exceptional.

The applicant sought a declaration that he was entitled to one-half of the remaining proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned matrimonial home.

The parties had previously entered into a domestic contract excluding a specific property from equalization and opting out of the statutory property regime under the Family Law Act.

After the excluded property was sold, the parties purchased a replacement home in joint tenancy using the respondent’s equity.

The court interpreted the marriage contract and held that ownership determined entitlement to property acquired afterward, and the contract did not extend exclusion protection to the replacement home.

As the property was held in joint tenancy, the applicant was entitled to half of the sale proceeds.

Following a successful motion to change a child support order, the applicant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis to the date of an offer to settle and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded, asserting that the applicant failed to discuss post-secondary expenses in advance and had claimed excessive amounts without proper receipts.

The court found the respondent had been unsuccessful on the substantive motion and had unreasonably opposed contributions to the child’s post-secondary education expenses despite significant income.

However, the court determined the applicant’s bill of costs was excessive given the simplicity of the matter and the hours claimed.

Applying the principles governing costs and the factors in Rule 24(11), the court awarded a reduced amount of costs.

Following a five‑day family law trial, the court addressed costs after the parties were unable to agree.

The applicant had been largely successful at trial and sought costs exceeding $67,000, while the respondent sought comparable costs or alternatively an order that each party bear their own costs.

The court applied the presumption in Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules that a successful party is entitled to costs, while considering discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and the parties’ financial circumstances.

Particular weight was given to the fact that the children primarily resided with the respondent and the potential financial impact of a costs award on the custodial parent.

The court ordered the respondent to pay reduced costs of $37,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable from her share of the matrimonial home proceeds or through set‑off against spousal support if necessary.