Mark DeGroot

The appellant appealed an equalization order and sought leave to appeal an elevated costs award.

He argued a $78,000 shareholder loan should have been excluded from his net family property as it was unlikely to be repaid.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the loan was outstanding at the date of separation and its inclusion was within the trial judge's discretion.

Leave to appeal costs was denied, as the trial judge's finding of bad faith justified costs on an elevated basis under the Family Law Rules.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed Sheri Thom’s appeal in part, finding that the trial judge erred by imputing income to her for support purposes without considering the impact of family violence on her earning capacity.

The court upheld the trial judge’s decision to deny her request to relocate with her child to New Brunswick, finding no reversible error in the best interests analysis.

The court recalculated support obligations, holding that no income should be imputed to the appellant, and awarded her costs of the appeal.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking a 2/2/5/5 shared parenting schedule for the parties' two children.

The applicant mother opposed and brought a cross-motion for a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court found that the eldest child was exhibiting emotional and behavioural issues following the separation, and there were documented concerns from the Children's Aid Society regarding the father's behaviour.

Applying the Glick factors, the court concluded a section 30 assessment was in the children's best interests and ordered the father to pay the upfront costs.

The father's motion for a shared parenting schedule was dismissed, with leave to renew after the assessment, though the interim schedule was slightly modified to reduce transitions.

This is a motion to quash an appeal from a trial judge's costs order.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario quashed the appeal, finding that leave to appeal was required for an appeal solely from a costs order under s. 133(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, and the appellant had not sought leave.

The court also directed the distribution of security for costs previously posted by the appellant, awarding a portion to the respondent for prior appeal costs and the current motion costs, with the remainder returned to the appellant.

The parties separated following incidents of family violence, including the respondent hitting their child and physically and sexually assaulting the applicant.

The applicant sought sole decision-making and supervised parenting time, while the respondent sought equal parenting time and joint decision-making.

The court found the applicant's evidence of family violence credible and ordered that the respondent's parenting time be supervised while inside the home, but permitted unsupervised time outside the home.

The applicant was granted sole decision-making responsibility and a permanent restraining order against the respondent.

The court also imputed rental income to the respondent for child support purposes and ordered him to pay an equalization payment and retroactive child support.

The appellant sought to overturn a lower court order terminating her spousal support.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in treating the proceeding as a variation rather than a review, in terminating spousal support based on the appellant's failure to achieve economic self-sufficiency, or in admitting an expert report without the author's testimony.

The court emphasized the trial judge's holistic assessment of evidence and credibility.

Following motions for exclusive possession, parenting, and support, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $35,000, while the respondent argued no costs should be awarded due to divided success.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party overall, having succeeded on exclusive possession and the choice of assessor, though success was divided on parenting and support.

Accounting for the divided success and an unnecessary first attendance, the court awarded the applicant costs of $12,000.

The applicant sought interim child and spousal support, and the respondent brought a cross-motion for parenting orders.

The court previously granted the applicant exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and a temporary shared parenting schedule.

This endorsement addresses the remaining support issues, the respondent's income for support purposes, and the selection of a s. 30 assessor.

The court determined the respondent's income for support purposes based on his investment portfolio's net equity and historical rate of return.

Interim set-off child support and mid-range spousal support were ordered, with the applicant taking over matrimonial home expenses.

The court also ordered Dr. Morris to conduct the s. 30 assessment due to Dr. Polak's unavailability.

Procedural orders for document production, questioning, and a settlement conference were made on consent.

This trial decision addresses complex family law issues following a three-and-a-half-year marriage, including parenting and decision-making for the parties' biological child (G), whether the respondent stood in the place of a parent for the applicant's two older children (R and F), child support, spousal support, and property division.

The court found joint custody unfeasible due to the respondent's lack of cooperation and self-serving actions, establishing a parallel parenting regime with the applicant having primary decision-making for education, health, and extra-curriculars, and the respondent for religion.

The respondent was found to stand in the place of a parent for R and F, leading to a child support obligation for all three children, albeit reduced for R and F due to the marriage's short duration.

The applicant was found entitled to compensatory spousal support for five years.

Crucially, the respondent's claim for an equitable interest in the matrimonial home was dismissed due to his "unclean hands" stemming from significant financial disclosure failings and litigation misconduct.

An equalization payment and occupation rent were ordered in favour of the applicant, along with compensation for chattels.

A motion to change a final custody and access order resulted in settlement on November 10, 2018, with the only remaining issue being costs.

The respondent father sought costs of $34,349.89 on a full recovery basis or $26,116.57 on a partial recovery basis.

The applicant mother sought no costs or nil costs.

The court declined to award costs to either party, finding that the settlement was not a clear capitulation by either party, both parties behaved unreasonably in not serving offers to settle, and the mother's financial circumstances and impact on the child's welfare were relevant considerations.

The parties separated after a high-conflict relationship.

Following separation, the children's relationship with the applicant father deteriorated until they refused to see him.

The father sought sole custody and reunification therapy, alleging the respondent mother intentionally alienated the children.

The mother sought sole custody and an order leaving access to the children's discretion.

The court dismissed both primary claims, finding no intentional alienation but concluding it was not in the children's best interests to abandon the relationship with their father.

The court ordered disengaged parallel parenting, maintained the children's primary residence with the mother, and implemented a step-up access schedule for the father along with mandatory parental counselling.

The mother sought sole custody, no access for the father, child support, a restraining order, and ancillary custody rights including passport and travel authority.

The father sought access only.

The court found that the father viciously attacked the mother in Cuba in February 2016, causing severe injuries including seven facial fractures requiring surgical reconstruction, while the child was present.

The court determined that the father lacked child-focused parenting capacity, demonstrated no insight into his conduct, and refused to engage in recommended counselling.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, ordered no access for the father, granted the mother full authority over passport and travel, and imputed income to the father for child support purposes.

This is a costs decision following a six-day trial on a motion to change dealing with custody and access of a child.

The applicant was primarily successful at trial and had served an Offer to Settle that was not accepted by the respondents.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, considering the applicant's success, the Offer to Settle, the respondents' unreasonable positions at trial, and the respondents' modest financial means.

The court rejected arguments that the respondents' financial circumstances should shield them from a costs award, while still moderating the quantum to reflect fairness and reasonableness.

The mother appealed a 2011 order finding her in contempt and a 2013 order reversing custody of the parties' three children to the father and limiting her access.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.

The contempt finding was set aside because the interim orders allegedly breached had been superseded by Minutes of Settlement.

The court found the trial judge erred in relying on the Child and Family Services Act and parens patriae jurisdiction, but upheld the decision to reverse custody based on the trial judge's finding of emotional abuse by the mother.

However, the court found the trial judge erred by not setting a fixed timeframe for an access review.

The court ordered a review of access arrangements and increased the mother's access in the interim.

Costs payable by the mother for the proceedings below were reduced from $400,000 to $200,000.