Michael D. Wonham

This endorsement determines costs following a motion heard on April 23, 2019.

The respondent, Joseph Patrick McAuley, was the successful party on the underlying motion and sought costs fixed at $9,221.95.

The applicant, Stephanie Melanie Caresse McAuley (also referred to as Ms. Kieffer-Wolf), opposed the requested amount, arguing the fees were excessive and that the respondent acted unreasonably.

The court found the respondent's legal fees reasonable and proportional, and that his offer to settle was as favourable or more favourable than the motion's outcome.

The court also found the applicant's conduct on the motion unreasonable, particularly her insistence on a parenting schedule that did not reflect the status quo and her failure to be forthcoming about medical issues.

Costs were fixed at $8,300 in favour of the respondent, reflecting 60% of pre-offer costs and 100% of post-offer costs, plus disbursements and tax.

The applicant sought to revert to a 2016 primary residence schedule for the children after a period of hospitalization, while the respondent sought an interim interim equal timesharing arrangement and Office of the Children's Lawyer involvement.

The court found that the pre-hospitalization status quo involved a more flexible schedule with significant time spent with the father.

The court ordered an interim interim timesharing arrangement where the children are with the mother Monday to Thursday and with the father Thursday to Monday, reflecting the pre-hospitalization flexible schedule more closely than the 2016 order.

The court also ordered a referral to the Office of the Children's Lawyer and vacated a previous temporary order.

The applicant father sought increased parenting time, including equal parenting or extended overnight access, and joint custody of their seven-year-old daughter.

The respondent mother opposed this, seeking interim sole custody, Office of the Children's Lawyer involvement, and retroactive child support.

The court declined to make an interim sole custody order, finding the parents could communicate on important decisions.

The court granted the father extended overnight access, finding it in the child's best interests, and dismissed the mother's concerns about the father's parenting abilities and mental health.

Retroactive child support claims were dismissed, but an adjustment for 2018 child support was ordered, and the father agreed to pay his proportionate share of certain Section 7 expenses.

This decision addresses costs following a motion in a family law matter.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs, arguing success on spousal support.

The respondent contended for no costs due to divided success.

The court found the applicant successful on spousal support but noted her unreasonable conduct regarding child-related issues.

Applying the principles of costs, including reasonableness and proportionality, the court awarded the applicant fixed costs of $1,200, acknowledging her partial success while accounting for her conduct.

The Respondent moved to suspend or terminate interim spousal support, review spousal support, and change the primary residence of the youngest child for school purposes.

The Applicant cross-moved regarding the children's school and parenting schedule.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion to suspend or terminate spousal support, maintaining the existing order.

The review of spousal support was adjourned due to lack of updated financial information.

The court ordered a return to the alternating week-on week-off parenting schedule as proposed by the Applicant and directed both parties to apply for a cross-boundary transfer for the youngest child to attend Trillium Public School, aligning with the older child's school, finding it to be in the child's best interests.

The parties separated after a 14-year marriage.

At trial, the court resolved outstanding financial issues including child support, spousal support, and equalization.

The court imputed income to the applicant wife for support purposes, finding she was underemployed in her home daycare business.

The court ordered the respondent husband to pay an equalization payment of $114,721.91, to be satisfied by a lump sum transfer from his pension, grossed up by 20% to account for future tax liabilities.

The court also ordered the transfer of a vehicle to the applicant to satisfy outstanding arrears and costs from a temporary order.

The respondent husband brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant wife's claims for equalization of net family property and spousal support, relying on a marriage contract signed in 2005.

The wife brought a cross-motion to dismiss the summary judgment motion and to determine the date of separation.

The court found that the marriage contract's property releases were ambiguous and did not constitute an absolute bar to equalization, creating a genuine issue for trial.

Regarding spousal support, the court applied the Miglin framework and found that the wife's catastrophic and unforeseeable health and financial changes since the marriage contract was signed created a genuine issue for trial as to whether the agreement still met the objectives of the Divorce Act.

The court also found a genuine issue for trial regarding the date of separation due to conflicting evidence requiring credibility assessments.

The husband's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

In a child protection proceeding, the applicant society sought an order prohibiting disclosure of a court‑ordered Family Court Clinic assessment to two teenage children who were the subjects of the report.

Although s. 54(5) of the Child and Family Services Act generally requires that children aged twelve or older receive a copy of such reports, the court may withhold disclosure if satisfied it would cause emotional harm.

The court considered the best interests of the children, the sensitive and highly personal content of the multidisciplinary assessment concerning multiple family members, and the evidence from the society and parents that disclosure could destabilize the children’s progress.

The court concluded that disclosure at that time would likely cause emotional harm and undermine privacy interests of other assessed family members.

The motion was granted and disclosure of the assessment to the children was prohibited.

Following competing interim family law motions concerning parenting arrangements, schooling, extracurricular activities, and related issues, the court determined costs.

The parties achieved mixed success on the underlying motions, though the respondent father was found to have been more successful overall.

The court considered the presumptive entitlement to costs under the Family Law Rules, the absence of an offer to settle by the applicant mother, and the conduct of both parties during the litigation.

While both parties engaged in unreasonable conduct, the court concluded that partial indemnity costs were appropriate.

The father was awarded fixed costs payable by the mother.

Following a motion addressing temporary parenting arrangements for a young child, the court was asked to determine the issue of costs.

The respondent mother sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing she was the successful party on custody, access conditions, appointment of the Children’s Lawyer, child support, and disclosure.

The applicant father argued that both parties had partial success and that any costs should be offset against alleged withdrawals from a joint account or deferred until the conclusion of the proceeding.

The court found the respondent was the substantially successful party but noted the applicant achieved limited success on access and information rights.

Applying the Family Law Rules and considering fairness and proportionality, the court awarded reduced costs.

On an interim parenting motion involving a young child, the court was asked to determine temporary custody and access in the context of highly conflicting allegations including abuse, parental alienation, and interference with access.

Police and child protection investigations had occurred, but the evidentiary record remained limited and untested.

Applying the best interests of the child analysis, the court emphasized stability, the importance of maintaining the status quo on interim motions, and the need to minimize parental conflict while preserving meaningful contact with both parents.

Temporary custody was granted to the mother with structured access to the father and restrictions relating to the paternal grandfather.

The court also ordered the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to assist in determining final custody and access issues.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking primary residence of the parties’ two children, school changes, and enrollment of the son in a different hockey association.

The respondent father brought a cross‑motion seeking to maintain shared parenting arrangements, different school placements, and access orders consistent with a custody evaluation report.

The court found that both parents contributed to escalating conflict and that the mother had attempted to undermine the father’s relationship with the son, including encouraging school and extracurricular changes aligned with her new residence and partner.

Relying heavily on the custody evaluation report, the court maintained shared parenting for the daughter, ordered counselling to address the damaged father‑son relationship, and rejected the requested relocation of the son’s school and hockey program.

Multiple interim parenting directions were imposed, including restrictions on parental communications and prohibitions on criticizing the other parent in the children’s presence.