Melanie Sager

The applicant father brought a motion to permit questioning of the respondent mother in a family law proceeding involving custody of their child.

The mother brought a cross-motion for interim custody and other relief.

The court reviewed the divergent case law on whether questioning should be permitted under Family Law Rule 20(5).

Finding that questioning is a valuable tool to test contradictory affidavit evidence and narrow issues, the court granted the motion, allowing each party to question the other for up to two hours, subject to specific subject matter limitations.

The court also granted parts of the mother's cross-motion on consent, including orders for child care expenses and financial disclosure, and adjourned the balance of her motion.

The applicant mother sought temporary sole custody of the child with expanded access to the respondent father.

The respondent father sought temporary joint custody or, alternatively, consultation rights on major decisions affecting the child.

The court found that the mother was the primary caregiver both during and after the parties' relationship.

The court granted temporary sole custody to the mother while expanding the father's access to include regular overnight visits on an alternating weekly schedule.

The court declined to order joint custody due to the parties' inability to cooperate effectively, but required the mother to consult with the father on major decisions.

The court also appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer and made provisions to minimize contact between the parties.

Following a successful appeal where the matter was remitted for trial, the Court of Appeal considered the parties' costs submissions.

The court applied the presumption that a successful appellant is entitled to costs and awarded the appellant $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellant father appealed a decision dismissing his motion to change child support for his adult disabled son, who had begun receiving Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits.

The trial judge and Divisional Court held that the presumptive table approach under the Federal Child Support Guidelines was not inappropriate.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the receipt of ODSP benefits displaced the assumptions underlying the table approach, making it inappropriate.

The matter was remitted for trial to determine the appropriate amount of support under s. 3(2)(b) of the Guidelines on a more complete factual record.

A costs decision following a six-day family law trial concerning custody and access arrangements for a child.

The mother sought costs of $55,234.87 on a full recovery basis, arguing she was significantly more successful on the key issues and made reasonable settlement offers.

The father, a self-represented lawyer, argued success was divided and that his litigation conduct was reasonable.

The court found the mother was more successful on the primary issues (sole custody versus parallel parenting, and access schedule) but reduced her costs award due to her failure to serve a formal offer to settle.

The court awarded costs of $30,000 to the mother.

A trial decision concerning custody, access, and child support for a three-year-old child born to unmarried parents who maintained separate homes throughout their relationship.

The applicant sought joint custody under a parallel parenting model with equal decision-making authority in separate domains and significantly increased weekend access.

The respondent sought sole custody with alternate weekend access and mid-week visits.

The court found no evidence of alienating behaviour by the respondent and rejected the parallel parenting model, awarding sole custody to the respondent with restrictions on her decision-making authority, alternate weekend access to the applicant, and a mid-week overnight visit.

Child support was ordered on a proportionate income basis.

In a high-conflict parenting dispute, the responding parent brought a motion to change a final custody and access order, seeking sole custody and reduced parenting time for the other parent.

The moving parent sought a parallel parenting regime and expanded shared parenting time, including an altered summer schedule.

The court ordered a custody and access assessment pursuant to s. 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, finding that significant parental conflict, allegations of parental alienation, and concerns regarding each parent’s insight into the child’s needs warranted expert evaluation.

The court also clarified that the moving parent would be responsible for transportation for parenting time and partially modified the summer parenting schedule to allow extended time with the child.

The moving parent’s request for costs thrown away relating to a proposed contempt motion was dismissed.

The applicant husband sought to set aside six separation agreements made between 1999 and 2007, claiming he was coerced and controlled by the respondent wife.

He also sought spousal support and an equalization payment.

The court applied the Miglin framework and found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of vulnerability or that the agreements were inconsistent with the Divorce Act.

The court concluded the agreements fell within the range of normative outcomes and dismissed the application.

The applicant husband brought a motion seeking authorization to obtain a $350,000 line of credit secured against jointly owned matrimonial properties or, alternatively, an order compelling the respondent wife to cooperate with refinancing or the sale of the cottage property.

The husband sought the funds to complete the purchase of a new home with his partner.

The court held it lacked authority to compel a jointly owning spouse to encumber matrimonial property and found that granting the requested relief could prejudice the respondent’s property and support rights under the Family Law Act.

The court also declined to order partition and sale of the cottage prior to trial because doing so could prejudice unresolved equalization and support claims.

The motion and amended motion were dismissed, leaving issues regarding sale of the properties to the trial judge.

The applicant brought a motion to vary a consent order respecting child support and parenting arrangements, alleging a material change in circumstances due to increased parenting time, higher childcare costs, increased debt, and unrealized income expectations.

The court reviewed the legal test for variation of support orders, including the requirement that a material change be unforeseeable and significant since the last order.

The court found the alleged financial pressures, lifestyle differences between households, and failed income expectations did not constitute a material change in circumstances.

The applicant was therefore not entitled to vary the support or access terms.

The court also enforced the parties’ obligation to equally share Montessori childcare expenses and required payment of the applicant’s outstanding share.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary an existing child support order on the basis that the adult child of the marriage, who suffered from schizophrenia and was unable to work, had begun receiving benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997.

The father argued that the ODSP payments should be deducted from his child support obligations retroactively.

The court held that the presumptive approach under s. 3(2)(a) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines applies to adult children unless applying the Guidelines is inappropriate.

ODSP benefits belong to the adult child and do not belong to the recipient parent, and their existence did not render the standard Guidelines approach inappropriate.

The court therefore refused to deduct ODSP benefits from child support and dismissed the motion to vary.

The applicant's motion for leave to appeal a temporary custody order was dismissed.

The respondent sought costs of $4,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant argued that because the respondent was legally aided, the costs should be limited to the Legal Aid tariff rate based on the indemnity principle under Rule 57.

The court rejected this argument, holding that s. 46(1) of the Legal Aid Services Act requires costs to be assessed without regard to the fact that the recipient is legally aided.

The court fixed costs at $2,500, taking into account the applicant's modest income and the lack of necessity in bringing the motion.

The applicant mother moved for leave to appeal an interim order granting custody of the parties' 11-year-old child to the respondent father.

The mother argued the motion judge erred by failing to maintain the status quo.

The Divisional Court found no error in principle, noting the motion judge properly considered the child's wishes and the best interests of the child under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court held there was no conflicting decision and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the order.

Leave to appeal was refused.

The appellant appealed an order relating to directions for the sale of the matrimonial home and exclusive possession.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding that the issue regarding the matrimonial home was moot as the home had already been sold.

The court further held that the remaining aspects of the order were interlocutory, meaning any appeal would lie to the Divisional Court with leave.