Lulama Maria Kotze

The parties resolved a Motion to Change regarding child support and section 7 expenses by way of a consent order, leaving the issue of costs to be determined by the court.

The moving party sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing she was successful and the responding party behaved unreasonably.

The court reviewed the settlement terms and found no clear case of success for either party, as both made compromises.

Finding no unreasonable behaviour or bad faith, the court made no order as to costs.

The applicant wife sought summary judgment on various family law claims, including access, retroactive child support, retroactive section 7 expenses, and adjustments for a joint line of credit.

The parties resolved ongoing child support and equalization.

The court dismissed the wife's motion for summary judgment on access, finding a genuine issue for trial and requesting the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court adjudicated the financial issues, imputing income to the husband for a period of incarceration and determining his share of retroactive child support and section 7 expenses, and the amount owed for the joint line of credit.

The applicant mother brought a motion for summary judgment on all family law relief sought in her application, including child support, equalization, and access.

The parties settled equalization and ongoing child support during the hearing.

The court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the father's access, dismissing the mother's request for an order of no access and requesting the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court also determined the amounts owing by the father for retroactive child support, retroactive section 7 expenses, and joint line of credit payments, declining to impute income to the father for alleged under-employment due to drug use, but imputing income for the period he was incarcerated.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment on their claims, grounded in contract and misrepresentation regarding "resale on-site guarantees" for their park model trailers, and dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim for business interference, breach of confidence, and conversion.

The court declined to grant summary judgment, finding that there were multiple triable issues and significant evidentiary gaps.

These gaps included the absence of key witness testimony from Brett Coleman, concerns about the authenticity of original documents, and insufficient evidence for a confident assessment of damages for both the main action and the counterclaim.

The court invited the parties to confer on a more efficient path forward, possibly a tailored trial procedure.

The appellant appealed a judgment declaring valid a continuing power of attorney for property executed by his father in favour of the respondent, and the dismissal of a motion to consolidate the respondent's application with pending proceedings.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred by treating the respondent's application as separate from the pending proceedings, which involved the same parties and raised identical issues of undue influence and suspicious circumstances.

The appeal was allowed, the application judge's decision was set aside, and the application was converted to an action and consolidated with the pending proceedings.

Following a successful motion for interim spousal and child support, the applicant sought costs of the motion.

The court noted that the applicant obtained an award exceeding the amount contained in her offer to settle, while the respondent made no formal offer to settle and failed to respond to the applicant’s written costs submissions within the time set by the court.

The court found the draft Bill of Costs reasonable.

Costs were therefore awarded in favour of the applicant in the amount claimed.

The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant’s costs of the motion forthwith.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal and child support following separation in a high‑income family with multiple jointly owned businesses and properties in Canada and the United States.

The respondent asserted that his income had dropped dramatically in the current year due to health issues, labour disruptions affecting the primary business, and business complications following separation.

The court found the financial disclosure inadequate and rejected the claimed income reduction, instead imputing an interim income of $600,000 to the respondent based on historical earnings.

The applicant was found to have no current income due to termination from the family businesses and inability to work while temporarily residing in Florida.

Interim support was ordered including child support of $3,000 per month and spousal support of $18,000 per month retroactive to July 1, 2012.

The responding father brought a motion under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction seeking the return of the parties’ child from Ontario to Florida.

The court determined that the child had been habitually resident in Florida immediately prior to the mother’s unilateral removal of the child to Ontario.

The father had custodial rights under Florida law and was exercising those rights at the time of the removal, making the removal wrongful within the meaning of the Convention.

The mother failed to establish any Article 13 defences, including acquiescence, non‑exercise of custody rights, or grave risk of harm.

The court ordered that the child be returned to Florida so that custody and access issues could be determined by the Florida court with jurisdiction.