Meghan Kathleen Lawson

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support following the parties' separation.

The respondent claimed inability to pay and disputed entitlement.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie case for spousal support based on her need and the length of the marriage.

Due to inconsistencies in the respondent's financial disclosure and reported expenses far exceeding his reported income, the court imputed his income at $142,598 based on the average of his reported yearly expenses.

Interim child support and spousal support were ordered to commence following the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant sought to enforce a separation agreement, including child and spousal support arrears, and to impute income to the respondent for intentional underemployment.

The respondent sought to terminate spousal support and pay reduced child support.

The court found the respondent intentionally underemployed, imputed income to him, ordered payment of significant child and spousal support arrears, and s. 7 expense arrears.

The respondent's motion to terminate spousal support was dismissed, but ongoing spousal support was temporarily set at zero due to the priority of child support, with the issue to be determined at trial.

The court also addressed life insurance obligations and the division of RESP funds and Marant shares.

The parties resolved a motion regarding parenting time and decision-making by way of Temporary Minutes of Settlement.

Both parties subsequently sought costs of the motion.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $8,841.12, while the respondent sought $5,000.00.

The court found that neither party was entirely successful, as the settlement reflected a true compromise and neither party beat their respective offers.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs due to divided success.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for leave to proceed with a motion regarding access and communication with the parties' two children, alleging the applicant mother had blocked access.

The mother opposed the urgency and alleged the father inappropriately discussed adult matters and the litigation with the children.

The court found a pressing need for judicial intervention but determined a case conference, rather than a motion, was the appropriate next step.

The court ordered a case conference to be scheduled and maintained the current access status quo pending the conference.

A costs endorsement arising from contested motions regarding parenting arrangements for two children born to parties in a high-conflict family law matter.

The applicant sought immediate overnight parenting time with the younger child and progression to equal parenting, while the respondent opposed immediate overnight access and sought supervised access exchanges.

The court adjourned the motions to a later date when the child would be older.

The respondent was substantially more successful on the dominant issue and was awarded partial costs.

The plaintiff sought an order to compel the sale of assets (a property, rural land, and vehicles) under Rule 45.01 and 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, alleging asset deterioration and seeking payment into court.

The defendants raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing a Master could not vary a judge's preservation order or grant mandatory injunctive relief.

The Master declined jurisdiction, finding that compelling a sale would effectively set aside or vary existing preservation orders made by a judge, and that mandatory orders are exclusively for judges.

Alternatively, the Master found that even if jurisdiction existed, the relief would not be granted as the assets were adequately protected by existing orders and undertakings, and compelling a sale would prejudice the defendants and a non-party (Jonathan Rewa) without a proven claim.

The motion was dismissed.

The Applicant Mother sought costs for a temporary child and spousal support motion.

The court awarded her $7,500, significantly less than requested, finding her partially successful.

The Respondent Father, who was self-represented, sought his own costs but was not awarded any.

The court considered the parties' success, the importance and complexity of issues, and their unreasonable conduct regarding settlement offers and income disclosure.

The Applicant Mother brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support following an almost 8-year marriage.

The primary issue was the Respondent Father's income for support purposes, as he was a fund manager with complex income streams.

The court relied on an expert's report for income up to 2016, declining to accept either party's extrapolations for 2017/2018.

The court found the Applicant Mother established a prima facie entitlement to spousal support and that the Respondent Father had the ability to pay.

Temporary orders were made for child and spousal support, and for the division of Section 7 expenses, aiming to achieve 'rough justice' and preserve the pre-separation standard of living without an in-depth analysis better suited for trial.

Following a successful motion to change a final family law order, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving party had succeeded in terminating spousal support and varying child support due to reduced income, though a related contempt motion failed.

Applying Rules 24 and 18 of the Family Law Rules and the principles in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, the court assessed success, offers to settle, and the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct.

The responding party’s failure to provide reliable financial disclosure and repeated lack of preparation for conferences constituted unreasonable conduct that increased litigation costs.

The court rejected both the full indemnity claim and the responding party’s request for no costs, fixing a fair and reasonable total costs award.

The applicant sought costs following the dismissal of the respondent's motion to set aside or vacate an arbitrator's award, remove the arbitrator, declare the mediation/arbitration agreement void, stay the arbitration, and determine the child's school for the 2012/2013 school year.

The applicant claimed full indemnity costs of $4,788.38, while the respondent sought no costs order.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant but reduced the amount to account for time spent on a prior motion step that was not compensated at that time.

The father brought a motion seeking to set aside an arbitration award made by Linda Chodos regarding the school placement of the parties' child for the 2012/2013 school year.

The father sought removal of the arbitrator, a declaration that the mediation/arbitration agreement was invalid, a stay of the arbitration, and a temporary parenting order.

The mother opposed the motion and sought a stay of the parenting proceeding.

The court found that the Ontario Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction to set aside the award, challenge the arbitrator, or remove the arbitrator.

The court determined that the arbitrator did not resign and that the mediation/arbitration agreement remained in force.

The court dismissed the father's motion and granted a stay of the parenting proceeding, allowing the arbitration process to continue.