M.A.C. Scott

The respondent husband brought a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant wife brought a cross-motion for exclusive possession, temporary spousal support, child support for three children (two adopted, one biological adult son), and an advance on equalization or interim disbursements.

The court dismissed the applicant's claims for exclusive possession, ongoing child support for all three children, and interim disbursements/equalization advance.

However, the court granted the applicant temporary spousal support of $5,000 per month and ordered an immediate payment of $100,000 to the applicant from the net proceeds of the matrimonial home sale, with a similar amount to the respondent, and the balance held in trust.

Retroactivity for support was reserved for trial.

This costs endorsement followed cross-motions where the respondent successfully obtained summary judgment dismissing the applicant's claim to set aside a final order, while the applicant was permitted to proceed with a motion to change child support.

The court found the respondent to be more successful on the dominant issue of upholding the final order.

Considering the respondent's formal offer to settle, which was more advantageous than the motion's outcome, and the reasonableness of the parties' conduct, the court awarded the respondent costs.

The court also considered the financial circumstances of both parties, noting the applicant's responsibility for unsuccessfully attempting to set aside a consented final order.

Costs were fixed at $9,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable monthly.

The Kawartha-Haliburton Children's Aid Society sought Crown Wardship for three children due to ongoing child protection concerns, including exposure to domestic violence, parental substance abuse, and chaotic lifestyles.

The two older children had significant special needs requiring intensive therapy.

The mother sought the return of the children, while the fathers sought access or placement with extended family.

The court found all three children in need of protection and concluded that none of the parents' plans could provide the necessary stability and permanency.

The court ordered Crown Wardship for all three children.

The court denied the parents' requests for access, finding that the relationships were not beneficial and meaningful to the children and that access would impair their future opportunities for adoption.

The orders for the two older boys were silent as to access to allow for clinically managed contact if recommended by their therapists, while the order for the youngest child specified no access.