Meghan Yvonne De Souza

The court determined costs following the striking of a notice of appeal for lack of jurisdiction and the dismissal of a related motion in a family law proceeding.

The self‑represented applicant had alleged bad faith against the respondent’s counsel, requiring the respondent’s counsel to retain separate counsel to address both the appeal and motion.

Bills of costs were filed by both counsel.

While acknowledging the applicant’s self‑represented status and financial circumstances, the court found the claimed costs reasonable and only slightly reduced them.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $3,800 inclusive of HST.

Maternal grandparents brought a motion for interim custody of a young child following an ex parte order obtained after the mother attempted suicide.

The mother brought a cross‑motion seeking the child’s return.

The court considered the best interests of the child under the Children's Law Reform Act and emphasized that interim custody decisions should generally maintain the true status quo unless strong evidence justifies disruption.

The court found the status quo was the child’s care with the mother since birth, and that the suicide attempt was not serious and was connected to a volatile relationship with the child’s father rather than parenting incapacity.

Evidence from child protection services and support workers indicated no concerns with the mother’s parenting.

Interim custody was returned to the mother with structured access for the grandparents.

In a family law motion concerning a young child, the paternal grandparents obtained an ex parte order granting them interim custody following the mother's apparent suicide attempt.

The mother subsequently brought a motion seeking the child’s return.

Given the conflicting affidavits, extensive hearsay, and lack of detailed evidence, the court declined to make credibility findings and scheduled an expedited hearing with viva voce evidence.

Pending that hearing, the court fashioned an interim access arrangement allowing the mother supervised parenting time while the grandparents retained primary care.

The order was made on an interim, interim basis in the best interests of the child pending a fuller evidentiary record.

The applicant spouse brought a motion for interim spousal support and ancillary procedural relief including an extension of time to set the matter down for trial and leave to amend the statement of claim to plead constructive trust.

The court considered the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines but emphasized that a means and needs analysis based on actual income and expenses remained critical.

Both parties’ budgets were scrutinized and adjusted to reflect reasonable expenses and resources.

The court determined that the applicant spouse had a monthly shortfall while the respondent spouse had a surplus capacity to pay.

Interim spousal support of $1,020 per month was ordered together with procedural relief extending the trial timetable and permitting amendment of the pleadings.

In an uncontested family law application between former common-law partners, the applicant sought custody of a minor child, child support and arrears, a restraining order, exclusive possession of the jointly owned home, and financial disclosure.

The court granted custody and ordered ongoing child support based on imputed income where the respondent’s current income was unknown.

Retroactive support for an adult child was refused as the child was no longer entitled to support.

Claims for a restraining order and exclusive possession of the home were dismissed, as the property was not a matrimonial home under the Family Law Act and the evidence did not establish unjust enrichment to support a constructive trust.

Annual financial disclosure was ordered.

The moving party brought a motion for interim relief within a motion to change a final order, seeking an increase in spousal support from $590 per month to approximately $1,500 per month pending determination of the variation application.

The moving party, suffering from advanced Parkinson’s disease and unable to work, argued that the responding party’s increased income and his ongoing need justified an interim increase.

The court reviewed the governing principles for interim variation of final support orders, including the requirement to establish a prima facie case for variation together with hardship or urgency.

Although the responding party’s income had increased modestly, the court found no evidence of increased expenses or uncovered medical costs and concluded that the threshold test was not met.

The motion for interim variation was therefore dismissed.