Matthew Newton

This costs endorsement addresses a high-conflict parenting dispute between separated parents.

The father was successful in obtaining a continuation of equal parenting time and joint decision-making, while the mother’s requests for sole decision-making, reduced parenting time for the father, a restraining order, and child support were largely unsuccessful.

The court reviews the principles and rules governing costs in family law, the parties’ conduct, and the impact of offers to settle.

Ultimately, the mother is ordered to pay the father $8,000 in costs, reflecting the father’s overwhelming success and the mother’s unreasonable litigation conduct.

This decision concerns a high-conflict parenting dispute between Carla Patricia Ferreira Da Silva and Ramon Arturo Gomez Quevedo regarding their three-year-old son, Rafael.

The court addresses the impact of the father's changed work schedule on the existing equal parenting arrangement and the mother's request to reduce the father's time and obtain sole decision-making.

The court emphasizes the importance of the status quo, the best interests of the child, and the need for flexibility and cooperation between parents.

A temporary order is made maintaining equal parenting time, with adjustments to accommodate the father's new employment, and joint decision-making is preserved.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking orders related to the parties' six-year-old son, including obtaining a report from the Children's Lawyer, mandating communication via AppClose software, the return of the child's birth certificate, cooperation for passport renewal, and permission for international travel.

The applicant father opposed these requests, citing fears of the child not being returned and the impact of travel on their bond.

The court granted all of the respondent's requests, finding the father's fears unsubstantiated, and ordered the father to pay $1000 in costs, noting his self-represented status and lack of bad faith.

The applicant sought a final order for the disposition of sale proceeds of a jointly held home, spousal support, and costs.

The matter proceeded to an uncontested trial after the respondent's pleadings were struck for failing to comply with financial disclosure orders.

The court found the respondent was unjustly enriched by the applicant's contributions to a hydro bill and second mortgage funds, and ordered reimbursement.

The court also imputed income to both parties and awarded the applicant spousal support of $589 per month for five years.

Due to the respondent's bad faith conduct, including defying court orders and abandoning the applicant's belongings, costs of $18,000 were awarded to the applicant on an elevated scale.

The applicant and respondent participated in a Nikah ceremony and cohabited for four and a half years.

The court deemed the marriage valid under s. 31 of the Marriage Act.

The applicant sought a 50% equitable interest in the matrimonial home, which was registered in the names of the respondent and his father.

The court found a resulting trust in favour of the applicant, declaring her a 50% owner, and ordered the sale of the home.

The court awarded the applicant occupation rent and an unequal division of net family properties due to the respondent's reckless gambling debts and the applicant's undisclosed student loan.

Income was imputed to the respondent for child support purposes, resulting in significant arrears.

The court ordered alternating weekend access for the respondent, with a condition that the child not be left alone with the paternal grandfather due to unresolved historical allegations.

The applicant moved to strike the respondent's pleadings due to persistent non-compliance with court orders for financial disclosure.

The respondent had a history of obstructing the sale of the matrimonial home and failed to provide complete financial documentation despite being given a "final opportunity" by prior court orders.

The court found the respondent in deliberate breach of disclosure orders, noting the critical importance of financial disclosure in family law.

Applying the three-pronged test for striking pleadings, the court determined that this was an exceptional case where no other remedy would suffice, and therefore struck the respondent's pleadings.

The parties separated after a long relationship and marriage.

The applicant sought a 50% interest in the matrimonial home, which was solely in the respondent's name, equalization of net family property, occupation rent, child support, and spousal support.

The court found the applicant had a 50% interest in the home by way of a resulting trust, as it was purchased with funds from a joint account.

The court ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment, occupation rent, and imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes because he voluntarily took a promotion that reduced his income.

The court also awarded spousal support of $1.00 per month and resolved arrears for child support and section 7 expenses.

The Father moved for interim access to the child, Arman.

The Mother brought a cross-motion for support, which was adjourned due to late service.

The primary issue was the Father's request for regular access in Pittsburgh, which the Mother opposed, citing concerns about the child's age, agitation, care by the paternal grandmother, travel hardship, lactation issues, safety, and interference with the child's schedule.

The court dismissed the Mother's preliminary request to adjourn the access motion.

The court found that the Mother's concerns were largely unsubstantiated or had been previously agreed upon in Pennsylvania.

The court ordered interim access for the Father from Wednesday to Sunday once per month in Pittsburgh, with exchanges in Buffalo and the Father covering the Mother's vehicular expenses, finding this to be in the child's best interests and consistent with a prior agreement in Pennsylvania.

The Father's request for 10-day access periods was deemed excessive for a young child.

The plaintiff law firm appealed a Master's order dismissing its action for delay at a status hearing under Rule 48.14.

The plaintiff argued the Master erred by failing to balance the preference for determining cases on their merits against the need to discourage delay, and by rejecting its explanation that the file 'fell through the cracks'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that recent appellate jurisprudence establishes the primary focus at a status hearing is whether the plaintiff has an acceptable explanation for the delay.

The Master applied the correct legal test and made no palpable or overriding error of fact in finding the plaintiff abdicated its responsibility to prosecute the action.