Lucienne MacLauchlan

The father brought a motion to change a 2014 joint custody order, seeking to remove the mother's tie-breaking authority for major decisions and establish an equal parenting time schedule.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz test for material change in circumstances.

While acknowledging ongoing parental conflict, the court found that the father failed to meet the threshold for a material change regarding decision-making authority, dismissing his request to remove the mother's tie-breaking power.

The court emphasized the importance of a clear decision-maker in high-conflict situations to prevent further power struggles and delays detrimental to the child's best interests.

However, the court did order a revised parenting schedule, transitioning to equal time sharing by summer 2024, and addressed other practical parenting issues.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final consent order, seeking primary residence and sole decision-making authority over the parties' six-year-old child, who had been diagnosed with ADHD and ODD.

The respondent father opposed and sought primary residence and sole decision-making authority.

The court found that the father was better equipped to manage the child's behavioural issues and provide stability.

The court ordered primary residence to the father during the school year, with joint decision-making authority where the father has the final say.

The court also ordered the father to pay retroactive child support and the mother to pay ongoing table support based on an imputed income.

The court rendered a costs endorsement following a trial where the Respondent was the successful party on the main issues.

Both parties filed written costs submissions.

The court considered the reasonableness of the parties' offers to settle, the complexity of the income determination issue, and the financial positions of the parties.

The Respondent sought $46,000 in costs, including legal and accounting fees.

The Applicant argued for lower costs due to her financial situation and care of children with exceptional needs.

Applying the Family Law Rules and principles from relevant case law, the court fixed costs at $26,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable by the Applicant to the Respondent.

The applicant mother sought retroactive child support and section 7 expenses for the period prior to giving effective notice in October 2019.

The parties had a 2010 separation agreement that included provisions for annual review and disclosure upon request, which neither party utilized until 2019.

The court found the mother's delay in seeking disclosure was not adequately explained and dismissed her claim for retroactive section 7 expenses because she failed to follow the agreement's protocol.

However, noting the father's significant, albeit unrealized, increase in income, the court ordered a lump sum of $8,500 in retroactive child support for the period prior to November 2019 to ensure a fair standard of support.

Following a successful motion for contempt against the applicant mother for unilaterally withholding the children, the respondent father sought substantial indemnity costs of $18,429.17.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, noting the mother's unreasonable behaviour and failure to accept reasonable offers to settle.

The court awarded the father costs fixed at $11,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The respondent mother brought a motion for an equally shared parenting schedule for the parties' three children.

The applicant father had unilaterally suspended the mother's in-person contact with the children based on various allegations, which prompted a Children's Aid Society investigation that ultimately found no safety concerns.

The court rejected the father's reliance on highly suspicious hearsay evidence, including a purported chat message from one of the children.

Applying the maximum contact principle and the best interests of the children, the court granted the mother's motion and ordered an equally shared temporary parenting schedule.

The respondent father brought a motion for contempt against the applicant mother for failing to return their two children to Ontario from British Columbia following her March Break access.

The mother claimed she withheld the children due to COVID-19 travel risks and the child's asthma.

The court found the mother intentionally breached a clear court order, noting she had unilaterally decided to keep the children despite no evidence of travel restrictions preventing their return.

The mother was found in contempt, and the court ordered temporary adjustments to the parenting schedule to facilitate the children's return and make-up time.

This case involved a motion and cross-motion to change a final consent order regarding custody, parenting time, child support, and Section 7 expenses for a 4.5-year-old child.

The court maintained joint custody, denying the mother's request for a final say in decision-making and the father's request for immediate 50/50 parenting.

Instead, a gradual increase in the father's parenting time was ordered, leading to a 2-2-3 shared parenting schedule after the 2020/2021 school year.

Specific holiday schedules, rules for exchanges, passport/travel, extended health benefits, and communication protocols were established.

The court also addressed child support arrears, adjusting the father's payments retroactively and ordering monthly payments towards arrears.

A prohibition on the child's contact with the father's brother, who faced child pornography charges, was also ordered.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 court suspension to dispense with the respondent father's consent for their child's counselling and to suspend the father's shared parenting time due to alleged failures to physically distance.

The father brought a cross-motion to enforce the existing week-about parenting order.

The court found the matters urgent but dismissed the mother's request to suspend access, finding no evidence the father was ignoring public health directives.

The court ordered the resumption of the shared parenting schedule and authorized the child's counselling, requiring both parents to participate in the intake process.

This costs endorsement followed a five-day trial concerning equalization of net family property, imputation of income, spousal support, child support, and Section 7 expenses.

The Applicant sought full indemnity costs of $45,225.03, while the Respondent argued for a 50% reduction and disallowance of a special disbursement.

The court, applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and principles from Mattina v. Mattina, found the Applicant had significant overall success, particularly on equalization and support, despite not achieving her highest claims.

The Respondent's inadequate financial disclosure and unreasonable position on equalization were noted.

The court disallowed a special disbursement for investigation services deemed premature.

Ultimately, the Applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs of $26,071.40, with half attributed to child and spousal support.

The Applicant sought equalization of net family property, retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, and Section 7 expenses.

The parties disputed the cohabitation date, the Respondent's interest in a farm property, and the inclusion of certain bank accounts and deductions in the Net Family Property Statement.

The court found the Applicant credible and the Respondent not credible, imputed income to the Respondent due to inadequate financial disclosure and intentional under-employment, and ordered an equalization payment, ongoing child and spousal support, and retroactive Section 7 expenses.

The divorce was granted.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for interim child support, occupation rent, and the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The court found the applicant was entitled to needs-based interim spousal support due to the significant income disparity and depletion of his savings.

The applicant was ordered to pay interim child support and a proportionate share of section 7 expenses based on his farming income.

The respondent's motions for occupation rent and the sale of the matrimonial home were dismissed, as there was insufficient evidence for occupation rent and it was unreasonable to force the sale of the home before equalization was determined.

Following a multi-day family law trial involving claims for divorce, equalization of net family property, spousal support, and unjust enrichment relating to improvements made to farm property owned by the wife's grandparents, the court determined costs.

The applicant had succeeded in obtaining a $50,000 judgment for unjust enrichment against the grandparents, while the respondent spouse obtained an equalization award exceeding $41,000 and dismissal of other claims occurred.

The court analyzed competing offers to settle under Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules and considered the relative success of the parties and the reasonableness of their settlement positions.

Although success was divided, the court found the applicant overall more successful, particularly on the unjust enrichment claim.

Costs were awarded to the applicant in a reduced and proportional amount.

The applicant, the former stepmother of the child, brought a motion for interim access.

The biological parents, who shared joint custody, opposed the motion.

The respondent father also brought a cross-motion for security for costs.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion for interim access, finding that it was not in the child's best interests given the parents' objections, the potential to undermine their parenting, and the child's expressed wishes.

The court also dismissed the respondent's motion for security for costs, as the applicant was an Ontario resident with substantial equity in her home.

The respondent was awarded set-off costs of $3,500.

The parties separated in 2013 and have one child together.

The mother sought sole custody and limited access, citing the father's criminal convictions for harassment and threatening.

The father sought joint custody and an alternate week shared parenting schedule.

The court found that both parents were capable and loved the child, and that the father's criminal behavior, while serious, did not preclude joint custody.

The court noted the mother's attempts to limit the father's access and her inappropriate discussions with the child.

The court ordered joint custody and an equal shared parenting schedule, along with retroactive and ongoing child support based on the Child Support Guidelines.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after a four-year relationship and had one child together.

The mother sought sole custody and a continuation of the father's limited access, citing his recent criminal convictions for harassment and uttering threats.

The father sought joint custody and an alternating week shared parenting schedule.

The court found that both parents were capable and loving, and that the father's criminal conduct, while serious, did not preclude joint custody.

The court ordered joint custody and an alternating week schedule, and calculated retroactive and ongoing child support based on a set-off approach.

Following a six-day family law trial with divided success on property and spousal support issues, both parties sought costs.

The court found that while success was generally divided and no settlement offers triggered cost consequences, the husband took unreasonable positions on several issues, including a claim for unequal division of net family property and possession of a dog.

To sanction this inappropriate behaviour, the court ordered the husband to pay the wife $20,000 in costs.

A mother sought leave to appeal an interim order granting temporary access between children and their paternal grandparents in a family law proceeding.

The moving party argued that the motion judge failed to properly consider the children’s views and preferences under s. 64 of the Children's Law Reform Act, declined to interview the children despite their request, and did not wait for a report from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The court found that the motion judge had already ordered observational visits specifically to obtain independent evidence of the children’s views and preferences, which was available on the motion.

The decision not to personally interview the children was a discretionary choice given the evidence before the court.

The court held that the correctness of the interim order was not open to very serious debate and did not raise a matter of public importance warranting appellate review.

Following a successful summary judgment ordering the defendant to vacate the plaintiff’s residence, the court addressed claims for aggravated and punitive damages, pre‑judgment interest, and costs.

The defendant had remained in the plaintiff’s home for several months without legal entitlement and failed to vacate despite receiving notice of trespass and funds to assist with relocation.

The court found the defendant’s conduct legally wrong but not malicious or outrageous enough to justify aggravated or punitive damages.

However, the defendant’s continued occupation forced the plaintiff to commence a civil action and bring a summary judgment motion.

The court therefore dismissed the damages claim but awarded the plaintiff substantial indemnity costs.

Following a nine-day trial where the defendants to the counterclaim successfully defended against allegations of exacerbating flooding on the plaintiffs to the counterclaim's property, the successful parties sought costs.

The court found that the plaintiffs to the counterclaim had unreasonably protracted the litigation and failed to accept a formal offer to settle.

Applying Rule 49, the court awarded the successful parties their costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter, totaling $269,025.59.