Mary Cybulski

In a family law application that had been outstanding for five years, the self-represented party refused to participate in the trial without counsel, citing medical issues and stress.

The moving party brought a motion for the appointment of an amicus curiae to assist the court and ensure the trial could proceed.

Applying the principles from Morwald-Benevides, the court found that the self-represented party was hopelessly incompetent to self-represent and that the assistance of an amicus was essential to the adequate discharge of the judicial function.

The motion was granted, and Legal Aid Ontario was directed to provide a list of lawyers willing to act as amicus.

The mother was the successful party in a motion to change regarding parenting and child support.

She sought costs of $32,455.36, relying on an offer to settle that met the requirements of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The father sought costs of $25,000, alleging bad faith by the mother, or alternatively that each party bear their own costs.

The court found the mother was entitled to costs but reduced the amount to account for the father's success on a previous motion for summer access.

The mother was awarded costs of $15,000.

The moving party mother sought to vary a temporary consent order to allow for increased, unsupervised access to her child, as well as a restraining order against the responding party father.

The mother had previously consented to supervised access due to severe substance abuse issues but had since demonstrated significant efforts towards sobriety and rehabilitation.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined it was in the child's best interests to gradually increase the mother's access and remove the supervision requirement, subject to strict conditions including random drug testing and COVID-19 protocols.

The court also granted the restraining order but declined to order counselling for the child.

Following a seven-day trial regarding custody, relocation, and support, the respondent sought costs of $80,351 on a substantial recovery basis.

The applicant argued for each party to bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found the respondent was the more successful party overall, having succeeded on the central issues of sole custody and relocation to Serbia.

However, the applicant had some success on spousal support and imputing income.

Considering divided success, the parties' respective financial positions, and the disparity in time spent by counsel, the court ordered the applicant to pay costs of $37,500, to be set off against $14,000 in retroactive spousal support owed by the respondent.

The mother brought a motion seeking security for costs against the father in the amount of $25,000.

The father had previously been ordered to pay costs to the mother, declared bankruptcy, and subsequently brought a motion to change seeking sole custody and termination of child support.

The court found that the father ordinarily resides outside Ontario, has unpaid costs orders, and there is good reason to believe his motion to change is a waste of time or a nuisance.

The court ordered the father to pay $20,000 into court as security for costs.

Following a motion and cross-motion regarding parenting time, decision-making authority, and child support where success was divided, the father sought partial indemnity costs of $32,285.16.

The mother argued no costs should be awarded due to divided success and the father's conduct.

The court found the father was the more successful party overall, particularly on the primary issues of parenting time and decision-making authority.

After considering the factors under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, including the parties' behaviour, time spent, and proportionality, the court ordered the mother to pay the father fixed costs of $18,000.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated while living in Belgrade, Serbia.

The father returned to Ottawa and sought sole custody and an order returning their five-year-old daughter to Canada.

The mother sought sole custody and permission to remain in Belgrade with the child.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding it in the child's best interests to remain in Belgrade where she was settled and where the mother had stable, high-paying employment with the United Nations.

The court imputed income to both parties, finding the father intentionally underemployed, and ordered him to pay child support.

The mother was ordered to pay time-limited spousal support to the father.

The parties separated after a 12-year marriage with four children.

At trial, the remaining issues were the determination of each party's income for child support purposes, section 7 expenses, and security for support.

The court imputed an income of $24,000 to the applicant, finding she was intentionally underemployed having not worked since 2005.

The court rejected the applicant's request to impute an income of $250,000 to the respondent based on past income splitting with his father's company, setting his income at his actual salary of $103,268.

The court determined which extracurricular activities qualified as section 7 expenses and ordered the respondent to apply for life insurance to secure his child support obligations.

In a family law motion arising from separation after a long marriage with four children, the applicant sought interim custody, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, spousal and child support, interim disbursements, and other relief.

The parties had entered a marriage contract waiving spousal support, but the court found that circumstances since the contract—particularly the birth of four children and the applicant’s extended absence from the workforce as primary caregiver—rendered the waiver inapplicable for interim purposes.

Applying Miglin principles, the court held the spousal support waiver invalid with respect to interim support and ordered monthly interim spousal support.

The court also granted the applicant interim custody, established access for the respondent, ordered child support based on an income of $250,000, granted exclusive possession of the matrimonial home to the applicant, and ordered interim funds for legal and valuation expenses.

Following a three‑day family law trial, the applicant sought substantial indemnity costs of $5,560.11 relying on success at trial, alleged reasonableness, and a prior offer to settle.

The court held that success at trial had been divided and that both parties had behaved unreasonably in aspects of the litigation, including disclosure issues.

The purported offer to settle was found invalid under Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules because it lacked the party’s signature and contained vague, unenforceable terms regarding child support.

The court also found the offer would have been unreasonable in any event due to missing financial disclosure.

In the circumstances, the court declined to award costs to either party.

The responding parent brought a motion to change a prior consent order granting joint custody with primary residence to him and weekend access to the other parent.

He sought sole custody, while the other parent sought equal time and continuation of joint custody.

The court held that no material change in circumstances had been established with respect to custody under the Children’s Law Reform Act, and therefore declined to vary the joint custody order.

However, the court found a material change regarding access and concluded that the child’s best interests required a simpler and more balanced parenting schedule to reduce parental conflict.

Access was varied to an alternating week‑on/week‑off schedule with detailed parenting provisions and revised child support.

The moving party sought a reduction of substantial spousal support arrears and a decrease in ongoing support obligations following a long-term marriage.

He relied on fluctuating income, health issues, and employment changes as a material change in circumstances and proposed reduced arrears and lower monthly support.

The responding party opposed the motion, citing the moving party’s history of non-disclosure, failure to comply with court orders including life insurance and medical coverage, and prior unsuccessful variation attempts.

The court found no material change in circumstances and determined that rescinding arrears would be unjust given the moving party’s repeated non‑compliance.

The motion to reduce arrears and ongoing support was dismissed.