Melissa Jeanette Fedsin

This is a costs decision following a 10-day matrimonial trial.

The applicant, Ian David Kirby, sought substantial costs from the self-represented respondent, Katherine Lynn Kirby.

The court found Ian to be more successful overall in the underlying trial and that Katherine's conduct, including prolonging the hearing and making unreasonable allegations, warranted a costs award against her.

While acknowledging Katherine's mental illness, the court determined that her unreasonableness contributed significantly to the litigation's length and expense.

The court awarded the applicant $150,000 in all-inclusive costs, representing an enhanced substantial indemnity recovery (approximately 78% of his post-2016 actual costs), to be paid from the respondent's share of the matrimonial home proceeds.

This case involved a 17-year-long family law dispute between separated spouses, Ian and Katherine, addressing divorce, spousal support (retroactive and ongoing), child support (retroactive and ongoing, including section 7 expenses), equalization of net family property (including pension), occupation rent, and the net proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home.

The court granted a divorce, dismissed Katherine's claims for retroactive spousal support and increased ongoing support, but ordered Ian to continue paying $1000/month until Katherine's 65th birthday.

Claims for retroactive and future child support by Ian were dismissed, as were claims for occupation rent and reimbursement of post-separation expenses by both parties.

Ian was ordered to pay Katherine an equalization payment of $4824.92.

The court also ordered that all outstanding costs awards against Katherine be paid from her share of the matrimonial home proceeds, with her remaining share held in trust.

The judge noted the respondent's difficult conduct throughout the trial and her significant health issues.

Following a 36-day high-conflict family law trial where the applicant father was entirely successful on custody and child support, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought nearly $265,000 in costs, having spent $300,000 on legal fees, while the respondent mother spent over $200,000.

The court found the applicant's offers to settle triggered the presumption of full recovery under Rule 18(14) for certain issues, and noted the respondent's unreasonable behaviour significantly lengthened the trial.

Balancing proportionality, affordability, and the respondent's conduct, the court ordered the respondent to pay $192,000 in costs.

A costs decision arising from a motion regarding jurisdiction and access enforcement in a family law matter involving child custody and relocation.

The respondent father sought to enforce the Ontario Court's jurisdiction over access issues pending his relocation to Nova Scotia, as established in a prior consent order.

The applicant mother challenged this jurisdiction and commenced a simultaneous application in Nova Scotia.

The court awarded costs to the respondent father on the jurisdiction issue, finding the applicant's conduct unreasonable, while declining to award costs on the access issues where success was divided and ultimately resolved by consent.

On a temporary family law motion, the court refused the father's request for equal time and granted the mother temporary sole custody and primary residence of the child.

Applying the best interests analysis under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court found credible evidence of domestic violence, controlling behaviour, and longstanding alcohol abuse by the father, together with concerns about his ability to prioritize the child's emotional needs.

The court held that there is no presumption favouring maintenance of the status quo on interim custody motions, although existing arrangements remain a relevant factor requiring careful scrutiny before variation.

The father's access continued on the existing schedule, but only subject to strict conditions including abstinence from alcohol, a prohibition on driving the child, and preconditions for any future motion to expand access.

Disclosure was ordered only in targeted areas relevant to income, disability, and mental health.

The applicant mother brought a motion to stay a trial judge's order that changed the primary residence of the child to the respondent father and required the child to attend school in Hamilton.

The trial judge had issued a handwritten endorsement without providing reasons for judgment.

The court found it had jurisdiction to hear the motion under subrule 38(35) of the Family Law Rules.

Applying the three-part test for a stay pending appeal, the court found a serious issue to be tried due to the lack of reasons and potential misapprehension of evidence, irreparable harm to the child if forced to change schools and primary caregivers abruptly, and that the balance of convenience favoured the mother.

The motion to stay was granted, returning the child to the mother's primary care and her previous school in Oakville pending the appeal.

The applicant mother brought a motion to stay an order of Justice Flaherty dated August 30, 2013, which changed the primary residence of the child from a shared parenting arrangement to the respondent father in Hamilton, reducing the mother's access to one evening per week and alternate weekends.

The mother alleged procedural unfairness due to the trial judge's hearing difficulties, misapprehension of evidence, and failure to give proper weight to the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendations.

The court granted the stay, finding a serious issue for appeal, irreparable harm to the child, and that the balance of convenience favored the child's return to her mother's primary care in Oakville pending the appeal.