McGee

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the applicant's claims against his former father-in-law, the respondents sought costs.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, including the respondents' successful offers to settle and the applicant's aggressive litigation approach.

The court awarded costs of $50,850 to the father-in-law and $10,268 to the former spouse, payable by the applicant.

The applicant in a family law proceeding sought a declaration that his former father-in-law held a half-interest in a condominium in constructive trust for the applicant's former spouse, aiming to increase her net family property for equalization purposes.

The father-in-law brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the trust claim.

The court granted the motion, holding that a person lacks private interest standing to advance a trust claim on behalf of a former spouse because an equalization claim creates only an indirect legal interest, not the direct personal legal interest required for standing.

The applicants objected to the passing of accounts by the respondent estate trustee for both the pre-death and post-death periods.

The court passed the pre-death accounts but denied compensation to the trustee for that period, finding she acted merely as an agent and was already adequately compensated by the deceased.

For the post-death period, the court passed the accounts but reduced the trustee's compensation to 1.5% due to her role in generating hostility and litigation.

The court also ordered the estate to pay the trustee's legal fees of $80,479.97.

Following a four-week parenting trial where the applicant father was granted custody, he sought full recovery of his costs.

The court found that the respondent mother had acted in bad faith throughout the proceeding by spoofing emails, falsifying documents, and actively sabotaging the father's parenting time.

Applying Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the father full recovery of his costs in the amount of $438,188.77, noting that the mother's conduct was designed to inflict maximum emotional and financial harm.

The applicant father sought custody of his young daughter after the respondent mother engaged in a severe pattern of parental alienation, false allegations of abuse, and the fabrication of electronic evidence.

During the four-week trial, the mother produced forged documents, including an altered paternity test and fake emails, before fleeing to India with her younger child.

The court granted sole custody to the father, finding him to be a capable and loving parent, while condemning the mother's extreme misconduct and misuse of electronic evidence.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking to change the children's school enrolment from Palgrave to Uxbridge following her unilateral relocation, or alternatively, to have the children attend school online due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent father opposed the motion and sought an order that the children continue attending their current school in person.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding no compelling evidence to rebut the presumption that in-person attendance is in the children's best interests.

The court also held that it was premature to order a change in the school district before pleadings were exchanged and a parenting schedule was determined, ordering the children to continue attending their current school in person.

Following a lengthy family law trial where the applicant father was overwhelmingly successful, he sought costs of $1.1 million.

The court found the respondent mother's litigation conduct unreasonable, particularly regarding parenting and income issues, and noted she failed to beat the applicant's offers to settle.

The court awarded the applicant $750,000 in costs on a partial recovery basis.

The court declined the applicant's request to characterize the costs as support to protect them from bankruptcy, finding that costs awarded to a support payor do not fall within the definition of a support order under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act.

The mother sought sole custody and permission to relocate with the parties' two-year-old child from Ontario to California.

The mother, a US citizen, had been isolated during the marriage and had no financial prospects or family support in Ontario.

The father sought sole custody but provided no clear plan and his evidence was found to be unreliable.

The court granted the mother sole custody, finding she was the primary caregiver and a better decision-maker.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz framework, the court permitted the relocation to California, noting the mother's sound plan for financial self-sufficiency and the emotional benefits to both her and the child.

The court also dispensed with the father's consent for travel and government documents.

The applicant father commenced a family law proceeding in Newmarket.

The respondent mother, who primarily cared for their infant daughter in London, sought to transfer the venue and requested temporary sole custody.

The court found the child ordinarily resided in London and transferred the proceeding there pursuant to Rule 5(1)(b) of the Family Law Rules.

Given the parties' lack of historical cooperation and the child's young age, the court awarded temporary sole custody to the mother while implementing a progressive parenting schedule for the father, including overnights.

The respondent father brought a motion to terminate a nesting order, evict the applicant mother from the family home, and obtain temporary custody of their children.

The parties are unmarried, and the home is solely in the father's name.

The court found that while nesting orders can exist between unmarried parents, the current arrangement was causing emotional harm to the children due to the father's deliberate involvement of the children in the conflict.

The court terminated the nesting order, dismissed the father's claim for custody, and ordered the father to remain at least 250 metres away from the family home during access exchanges.

The applicant mother sought child support based on an imputed income of $162,512, alleging the respondent father was hiding his true income and assets.

The court found the father had submitted false tax documents, lied about his residence, and failed to provide accurate financial disclosure.

Pursuant to section 19(1)(f) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court imputed an income of $54,909 to the father based on his unfunded expenses, and ordered table child support accordingly.

The mother's claim for section 7 expenses was dismissed due to a lack of evidentiary basis.

The applicant wife sought to set aside a cohabitation agreement executed shortly before the parties purchased a home and later married.

The agreement provided that each party would retain their initial contribution to the home and share the remaining equity 70/30 in favour of the respondent husband.

The applicant argued she did not understand the nature and consequences of the agreement and received inadequate independent legal advice.

The court found the independent legal advice was deficient but concluded the applicant was not under duress, the terms were not unconscionable, and the respondent did not take advantage of her.

The court declined to set aside the agreement.

The applicant mother brought an ex-parte emergency motion seeking sole custody of the parties' two daughters and termination of the respondent father's access, alleging volatile behaviour and substance abuse.

The court initially granted a temporary restraining order.

On the return of the motion, the father provided responding materials denying the allegations and explaining the context of the incidents.

The court found the father's evidence equally credible to the mother's, noted the mother's pre-emptive actions, and concluded there was no basis to terminate access or vary custody prior to a full hearing and CAS investigation.

The temporary order was terminated, and the shared parenting schedule under the separation agreement was reinstated.

The applicant wife brought an emergency, ex parte motion for a preservation order over the respondent husband's assets, primarily his recently commuted pension.

The husband had failed to disclose the details of his retirement package and the transfer of pension funds.

The court found the urgency threshold was met due to the husband's lack of transparency, but held the requested order over all assets was disproportionate.

The court granted a partial preservation order over two GICs and the matrimonial home.

No costs were awarded to the applicant because her counsel failed to give notice of the motion to the husband's active counsel.