Matthew E. Pike

The Applicant sought orders for a significant distribution from the net proceeds of sale of a jointly held property and substantial interim legal fees and disbursements.

The Respondent opposed, proposing a smaller, equal distribution of proceeds and challenging the quantum of interim fees.

The court ordered an equal distribution of $250,000 to each party from the sale proceeds and significantly reduced the Applicant's requested interim fees, ordering the Respondent to pay $725,000 for the Applicant's future litigation expenses.

The court found the Applicant's claims for spousal support and equalization had merit, but emphasized the need for reasonableness in fee requests and the complexity of financial disclosure.

This endorsement addresses multiple procedural issues in a family law case, including outstanding disclosure, scheduling of a long motion for spousal support, severing the divorce from corollary issues, and costs for settlement conferences.

The court found the respondent in breach of a disclosure order and ordered costs against him.

The court also granted the respondent's motion to sever the divorce, finding no evidence of prejudice to the applicant.

Significant costs were awarded against the applicant for wasting court time and the respondent's time during settlement conferences by not being prepared to sign an agreement she had negotiated.

A Trial Management Conference was scheduled but did not proceed as planned.

Instead, the court addressed five procedural issues: (1) the withdrawal of constitutional jurisdiction challenges by both the mother and M'Chigeeng First Nation, with the mother now accepting the court's jurisdiction over custody, access, and child support matters; (2) the removal of the amicus curiae appointed to address constitutional issues; (3) the conversion of the Children's Lawyer's role from representation under section 89(3.1) to investigation and reporting under section 112 of the Courts of Justice Act; (4) the scheduling of a Settlement Conference before the trial judge; and (5) procedural orders regarding costs submissions and settlement conference briefs.

The court awarded the respondent, Ana Tone, full indemnity costs totaling $165,696.48, plus $8,705.48 in outstanding costs, against the applicant, Raymond Tone, following a bitter family law trial.

The applicant was found largely at fault for rejecting multiple reasonable settlement offers and for unreasonable and bad faith conduct throughout the litigation, including prolonging the trial with irrelevant testimony and changing counsel repeatedly.

The issues were numerous and complex, and the respondent achieved highly successful results on nearly all matters, far exceeding her offers to settle.

The court also noted the applicant's conduct wasted significant public resources.

This decision addresses a motion by M'Chigeeng First Nation to transfer a family law custody and access case from the Ontario Court of Justice to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The case involves three Indigenous children whose parents are members of different First Nations.

The mother and M'Chigeeng First Nation asserted section 35 constitutional rights regarding jurisdiction over the children.

The court dismissed the transfer motion, finding that the Ontario Court of Justice has jurisdiction to hear constitutional claims and grant meaningful remedies short of declaratory relief.

The court also addressed costs of prior motions, appointed amicus curiae, and provided directions for trial preparation.

The trial addressed parenting, child support, spousal support, and property division following a short, high-conflict marriage.

The court granted the respondent sole decision-making authority for the children and primary residence, with the applicant having alternate weekend access.

The applicant's income was imputed to $60,000 (or $78,102 for 2018) for child support purposes due to intentional under-employment.

No spousal support was awarded.

The date of separation was determined as February 1, 2015, and the matrimonial home was held in joint tenancy, rejecting the applicant's resulting trust claim.

The applicant father sought temporary sole custody of two children, an order that they be returned to Toronto from M'Chigeeng First Nation where the respondent mother had unilaterally taken them, and police enforcement of a prior ex parte order.

The respondent mother sought temporary joint custody with the children remaining on M'Chigeeng First Nation, a restraining order, and challenged the court's jurisdiction based on section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

M'Chigeeng First Nation intervened, asserting exclusive jurisdiction over the children and instructing a local First Nations police service not to enforce the court's order.

The court granted temporary joint custody, ordered the children returned to Toronto, dismissed the mother's request for relocation and restraining order, and declined to order police enforcement or find contempt, giving the mother one final opportunity to comply voluntarily.

An ex parte motion for temporary custody and return of two children, brought by the father following the mother's relocation to Manitoulin Island territory of M'Chigeeng First Nation.

The mother and First Nation challenged the court's jurisdiction based on section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, asserting aboriginal and treaty rights, as well as alternative statutory and division of powers arguments.

The court addressed procedural complexities, constitutional questions, party status, and case management directions.

M'Chigeeng First Nation was added as a party.

The court held that it retained statutory jurisdiction pending determination of the section 35 claims and could make interim orders.

The matter was scheduled for full hearing on the merits in February 2020.

This case concerns custody and access of two young children, Bella Spring Hare (born 2015) and Lionel Taylor Neshkiwe (born 2017), whose parents are members of different First Nations on Manitoulin Island but have lived primarily in Toronto.

The father commenced proceedings in Toronto seeking custody after the mother removed the children to Manitoulin Island.

The mother sought to transfer the proceeding to Gore Bay and challenged the court's jurisdiction based on a First Nation by-law asserting exclusive jurisdiction over child custody matters.

The court granted an ex parte order for the children's return but the mother refused to comply.

The court appointed the Children's Lawyer and directed notice to the Attorneys General of Ontario and Canada due to constitutional questions arising from the conflict between First Nation by-laws and provincial legislation.

The parties in a family law application resolved disclosure motions by consent, agreeing that orders would issue and either party could seek costs on written submissions.

The court declined to make a costs award, citing that the motion was not heard on the merits, making it difficult to determine success or inappropriate behaviour.

The court also emphasized the disproportionate allocation of judicial resources required to review extensive cost submissions for a matter settled by consent, and the principle that parties are best positioned to determine costs at settlement.