Mark S. LaFrance

The respondent wife brought a motion for an order requiring detailed financial disclosure from the applicant husband and three non-party, privately held corporations in which the husband holds a minority shareholding.

The husband had failed to value his corporate interests despite acknowledging this obligation in his originating application filed over a year prior.

The wife sought disclosure to determine the husband's income for support purposes and the value of his corporate assets.

The husband and the corporations opposed disclosure without a comprehensive non-disclosure agreement.

The court found the wife met the test for non-party disclosure and ordered production of specified corporate documents and financial information without requiring the wife to sign an NDA, instead relying on the Family Law Rules' confidentiality provisions and professional obligations of counsel and experts.

The court also ordered that the proceedings be initialized to protect the corporations' privacy interests.

The applicant sought to vary child support and reduce arrears, claiming a material change in circumstances and undue hardship.

The respondent opposed and brought a cross-application for financial disclosure, variation of child support, and reimbursement for Section 7 expenses.

The court found the applicant intentionally unemployed/underemployed, had access to significant income, and failed to provide full financial disclosure despite multiple orders.

The applicant's claims were dismissed.

The court imputed income to the applicant, ordered her to pay substantial child support arrears and ongoing support, and to secure health benefits and life insurance for the child.

This case involved a 21-year common-law relationship with two adult children, addressing claims for pension equalization, child support, section 7 expenses, spousal support, and property accounting.

The court determined the separation date was December 9, 2016, which rendered the applicant's claim for unjust enrichment regarding pension equalization statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The applicant was awarded child support arrears and spousal support, with spousal support fixed at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range for a limited duration.

The respondent's claims for adjustments related to jointly held properties were largely accepted, while the applicant's claims for certain operating expenses were denied.

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 the dismissal of the applicant's family law application via a summary judgment motion, the respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $7,500.

The applicant, who had repeatedly delayed proceedings, failed to file responding materials, and ignored previous costs orders, argued she should pay no costs due to financial hardship and health issues.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments, finding her litigation conduct unacceptable and her claims of ignorance of the process not credible.

The court ordered the applicant to pay $6,500 in costs to the respondent, emphasizing the need to sanction inappropriate litigation behavior and achieve proportionality.

The respondent brought a motion to distribute net sale proceeds from two jointly owned properties held in trust, which the applicant did not oppose.

The applicant brought a cross-motion seeking the sale of a third jointly held property and a preservation order to hold the net proceeds in trust to secure her claims for spousal support and unjust enrichment.

The court ordered the sale of the third property and the release of the trust funds.

However, the court dismissed the applicant's requests for preservation orders, finding she failed to establish irreparable harm for the support claim and failed to meet the test for a Mareva injunction regarding the unjust enrichment claim.

The parties resolved parenting issues prior to trial, leaving retroactive and ongoing child support in dispute.

The father, an IT professional, had previously paid support based on an unwritten 'rolling average' of his income.

After losing his job, he made significant RRSP withdrawals and reduced his support payments.

The court rejected the rolling average approach as it was not in writing, and included the RRSP withdrawals in the father's income for child support purposes, finding he failed to prove they were used primarily for legal fees.

The father was ordered to pay $15,184 in retroactive child support and $463 in retroactive section 7 expenses.

The father brought a motion to change a final order, seeking sole decision-making authority over the education plan of the couple's 14-year-old daughter, Gracie, and to enroll her in Napanee District Secondary School (NDSS).

The mother opposed, preferring Gracie remain at Frontenac Secondary School (FSS) in Kingston, citing Gracie's academic success there, transportation issues, and concerns about the father's home environment.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the parents' severe inability to cooperate on educational decisions.

Considering Gracie's expressed preference for NDSS, supported by a Voice of the Child report, and finding the mother's objections insufficient, the court granted the father's motion.

The order was varied to give the father final decision-making authority for education, permit Gracie's enrollment in NDSS, and assign the mother responsibility for transportation on her weeks.

The child's residency schedule was also clarified.

The applicant husband brought motions to find the respondent wife in contempt for failing to provide timely disclosure, and for various other relief including the sale or winding up of their jointly owned companies and former matrimonial home, an advance on legal fees, and an extension of the limitation period to seek equalization.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the wife's delay was not wilful or deliberate.

The court declined to order the sale of the companies or the home given the existence of separation agreements that dealt with those assets, but granted preservation orders restraining the wife from encroaching on corporate funds or the home's equity.

The request for an advance on legal fees was dismissed, and the limitation period extension was adjourned to trial.

The Applicant (Father) brought a motion seeking a parenting plan and an order for the Respondent (Mother) to return their three-year-old child to Frontenac County following the Mother's relocation.

The parties reached consent terms on supervised parenting, alcohol abstinence during parenting time, and a prohibition on driving with the child.

Disputed issues included the pre-parenting alcohol abstinence period, the child's residence, and the specific parenting schedule.

The court ordered a 48-hour pre-parenting alcohol abstinence period and dismissed the motion to return the child to Frontenac County, instead ordering that the Mother not relocate the child more than 50 kilometers from the Father's residence without prior agreement or court order.

A specific interim parenting schedule was established, including alternating Saturday and Sunday visits, with provisions for communication via Our Family Wizard and a non-denigration clause.

The Applicant sought to terminate his spousal support obligation, while the Respondent requested its continuation and increase.

The court treated the matter as an originating application under the Divorce Act, upholding the parties' separation agreement as valid and enforceable.

The court rejected the Applicant's arguments that post-separation income increases and the Respondent's repartnering should negate his support obligation.

It emphasized the strong compensatory nature of support in a long-term marriage, the Respondent's contributions to the Applicant's career, and the need to consider post-separation income, including a portion of a pension lump sum payout, applying principles from Boston and Halliwell.

The court ordered spousal support to continue at an increased amount and included a provision for life insurance.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support.

The parties were unmarried and the respondent disputed that they were spouses, alleging a non-exclusive relationship.

The court applied the Moldowich criteria and found the applicant established a prima facie case of cohabitation since 2007.

The court also found a prima facie case for non-compensatory entitlement based on the applicant's needs and disability.

Interim spousal support was ordered at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, retroactive to the start of the year.

The applicant mother sought to vary a 2010 custody order for her son, AJ, who has moderately severe autism, requesting a week on/week off parenting schedule and a variation of child support.

She also sought determination of post-secondary costs for her daughter, Jessie.

The respondent father sought a variation of custody for AJ to 24/28 days with him, retroactive and ongoing child support, and an order appointing him as guardian of AJ's property.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to Jessie's departure for university.

The court ordered a week on/week off schedule for AJ, with the mother responsible for driving him to school to avoid long bus rides.

The mother was ordered to pay $7,193.14 in retroactive child support to the father and $500 per month directly to Jessie for her post-secondary education.

The father was appointed guardian of AJ's property, with a directive to share ODSP payments equally with the mother.

The court considered a joint submission seeking a consent order directing the parties to engage in secondary arbitration through a parenting coordinator in a family law matter.

The judge raised questions about certification, screening for domestic violence and power imbalances, and the enforceability of a term requiring execution of a future parenting coordination agreement.

The court accepted counsel's explanation that the eventual stand-alone agreement would be a family arbitration agreement governed by the Family Law Act and related regulation, and that any refusal to sign would return the substantive dispute to court.

Although the particular term was not enforceable, the court held the parties understood its limits and signed the consent order.

The parties submitted Minutes of Settlement seeking a Consent Order that included terms for secondary arbitration (parenting coordination) for future disputes.

The court raised several questions regarding whether the proposed terms complied with the mandatory requirements for secondary arbitration under the Family Law Act and the Arbitration Act, 1991, such as the qualifications of the arbitrator and the delegation of choosing the arbitrator.

The court deferred granting the consent order pending further submissions or redrafted Minutes from counsel.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim joint custody of the parties' three-year-old child, as well as determinations on child and spousal support.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for interim sole custody, retroactive and ongoing child support for both the parties' child and her older child from a previous relationship, and retroactive and ongoing spousal support.

The court granted interim sole custody to the mother, finding that the parties' inability to communicate and the child's lack of overnight visits with the father militated against joint custody.

The court ordered the father to pay ongoing child support for the parties' child and spousal support, but dismissed the claims for retroactive support and child support for the older child, finding the father did not stand in loco parentis.

Following a lengthy family law trial after the parties’ separation, the court addressed divorce, custody and access, child and spousal support (including retroactive amounts), equalization of net family property, section 7 expenses, life insurance security for support, and various adjustment claims.

Joint custody with primary residence to the mother was ordered along with structured access.

The court determined the parties’ net family property and ordered a pension division at source rather than through equalization.

Retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support were fixed based on imputed and actual incomes, and the father was ordered to contribute to section 7 expenses.

Claims for occupation rent and reimbursement of certain expenses were dismissed, and improperly obtained private emails were ordered removed from the record.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking expanded parenting time with his young child, including overnight access, while the respondent mother sought sole custody and continued supervised access for the father.

The court considered allegations of past domestic violence, the child’s young age, the status quo of supervised access, and recommendations from an Office of the Children’s Lawyer investigation.

The court found that while concerns regarding anger issues existed, the strict supervision regime was overly restrictive and risk could be managed through structured conditions.

The child remained primarily in the mother’s care, but the court ordered a graduated schedule increasing the father’s parenting time and introducing overnight access.

The order included behavioural conditions, supervision within the father’s household, and a future review following renewed OCL involvement.

The appellant appealed a trial decision granting the respondent sole custody of their three-year-old child, granting the appellant supervised access, and issuing a five-year restraining order against him.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by refusing to adjourn the trial and by precluding him from calling his treating psychiatrist.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly exercised his discretion to proceed given the child's best interests and the length of the proceedings.

The Court also held that the appellant failed to comply with the Family Law Rules for expert witnesses, and the psychiatrist's evidence would not have altered the overwhelming evidence supporting sole custody and supervised access.