Lydia Moritz

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 22, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs of $5,000 payable forthwith to the responding party.

The parties in a family law proceeding brought three motions.

The applicant sought leave to amend her application to add claims for spousal support and a declaration of beneficial ownership of a cottage lot, and an order dispensing with the respondent's consent to the sale of the matrimonial home and cottage property.

The respondent sought orders regarding the listing agent for the matrimonial home, delaying the sale of the cottage property, and disposing of business assets.

The court granted the applicant leave to amend her application regarding spousal support but adjourned the request regarding the trust claim for further argument.

The court dismissed the applicant's request to dispense with the respondent's consent to the sale of the properties.

The court ordered the applicant's choice of listing agent for the matrimonial home, adjourned the timing of the cottage sale, and ordered that the business assets remain on the premises until valued.

The applicant wife sought temporary child and spousal support, payment of matrimonial home mortgage and line of credit, a certified business valuation, advance costs for a business valuator, and third-party records.

The respondent husband sought to sever the divorce from corollary relief and dismiss the wife's motions.

The court imputed an annual income of $250,000 to the husband and $15,000 to the wife, ordered retroactive and ongoing child support of $3,277/month, and retroactive and ongoing spousal support of $4,666/month.

The husband was ordered to continue mortgage payments and pay $20,255 in advance costs for the wife's business valuation.

Third-party records were ordered to be produced.

The divorce was severed from corollary relief.

Following a temporary order that dismissed the applicant's request for interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and granted the respondent's motion for its sale, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought $15,137.37 in partial indemnity costs, while the applicant sought $23,995.00, arguing the respondent's unreasonable conduct justified a costs award in her favour despite her lack of success.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and awarded him costs, but applied a downward adjustment to account for his response to an offer to settle and his post-separation conduct, fixing costs at $10,000.

The parties separated after 39 years of marriage but continued to reside in the jointly-owned matrimonial home.

The applicant sought interim exclusive possession of the home, a non-depletion order, and restoration of the financial status quo.

The respondent sought an order for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the applicant's request for exclusive possession, finding insufficient evidence of violence or threat to well-being.

The court granted the respondent's motion for the sale of the matrimonial home, and the applicant's cross-motion for the sale of the jointly-owned cottage, finding no prejudice to the applicant's Family Law Act rights.

The request for a non-depletion order was largely dismissed, though the respondent was ordered to continue paying home expenses.

This protracted and acrimonious family law trial addressed equalization, division of matrimonial home equity, child support arrears, spousal support arrears, and prospective spousal support.

The court found the respondent lacked credibility, particularly regarding his deliberate non-disclosure of a $3 million Retirement Compensation Arrangement (RCA) Trust and his intertwined finances with a common-law partner.

The applicant was found credible.

The court awarded the applicant a significant equalization payment, pre-judgment interest, and substantial retroactive and prospective lump-sum spousal support, while dismissing the respondent's claims for occupational rent and dispositional costs.

The RCA Trust was deemed income for support purposes, not an asset for equalization.

In a shared custody child support matter, the court determined the appropriate child support amount under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines following a change in the timesharing arrangement.

The father sought custody and child support; the mother sought the same.

Following an Office of the Children's Lawyer report recommending joint custody with the child's primary residence with the father, the parties settled on custody and timesharing.

The court conducted a summary hearing on the outstanding issue of child support, applying the three-part test under section 9 of the Guidelines: the set-off calculation based on the parties' respective incomes, the increased costs of shared custody, and the condition, means, needs and circumstances of each party.

The court ordered the father to pay $64 per month in child support, representing the set-off amount, and directed the parties to share special and extraordinary expenses proportionally to their incomes.

A costs decision in a family law matter involving custody and child support.

The applicant father sought custody of the child and child support.

The parties ultimately settled on joint custody with primary residence to the father, as recommended by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The respondent mother sought costs of $19,902.28 for the non-financial issues.

The court awarded costs to the mother on a full recovery basis for work done after August 4, 2015, when the father failed to accept the mother's reasonable settlement offer.

The court fixed costs at $5,359.03, payable in two installments.

Following motions in a family law proceeding, the court determined the issue of costs pursuant to the Family Law Rules.

The applicant had been the more successful party, obtaining child and spousal support on a without prejudice basis and defeating the respondent’s claim for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The respondent argued that costs should be reserved or that each party bear their own costs because the support order was made without prejudice.

The court rejected that position, emphasizing that Rule 24(10) requires costs to be determined at each step of a proceeding.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the successful party, with reductions to the claimed hourly rate, travel time, and attendance time.

A costs decision following a trial on retroactive child support.

The respondent sought costs on a full recovery basis in the amount of $21,752.73 after obtaining a judgment for $5,000.00 in retroactive child support arrears.

The applicant sought no costs.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and had made compliant offers to settle that were as favorable as the trial result.

However, the court declined to award full indemnity costs, citing proportionality concerns and the applicant's financial circumstances as the sole custodial parent with no other income source.

The court awarded costs of $5,000.00, set off against the child support arrears owed.

This trial concerns the amount of retroactive child support owed by the father for the period between April 2007 and September 2010.

The parties have two children together.

The father sought to offset arrears of $16,419.53 by claiming travel expenses for access ($20,492.78), special and extraordinary expenses ($4,763.32), and loans advanced to the mother ($12,285.26).

The court found that while the father incurred legitimate access costs and advanced funds for a vehicle purchase, not all claimed offsets were appropriate.

The court exercised its discretion to reduce the arrears to $5,000.00, considering the father's financial capacity, his support of two households and six children, and the mother's ability to contribute to her children's support.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment in a matrimonial dispute, arguing that the trial judge's conduct exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias and compromised trial fairness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's credibility findings were supported by the evidence and his comments fell far short of meeting the test for reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court also upheld the custody and access order, noting it was grounded in the specific needs and best interests of the children and consistent with the position of the Children's Lawyer.