Michèle Labrosse

The parties separated in 2019 after a 19-year marriage.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, child support, and an equalization payment, while the father sought joint decision-making, equal parenting time, and spousal support.

The court found that the father had engaged in coercive control and family violence, making joint decision-making impossible, and awarded sole decision-making to the mother.

The court maintained the existing parenting schedule, ordered the father to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, and dismissed his claim for spousal support.

The father was also ordered to pay an equalization payment of $178,615.79, along with reimbursements for joint expenses and a penalty for failing to disclose his pension valuation.

The applicant sought an urgent motion for sole and exclusive custody of the three children, citing concerns that the respondent, an emergency physician, posed a COVID-19 exposure risk and had allegedly violated inter-regional travel restrictions.

The respondent countered that she adhered to all preventive measures, was an essential worker capable of assessing risks, and her travel was justified.

The court dismissed the urgent motion, finding no sufficient justification for exclusive custody and emphasizing the need for separated parents to foster normalcy and communicate respectfully during the pandemic, as per *Johnson c.

Johnson, 2020 ONSC 2896*.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, sale of the matrimonial home, and other incidental relief following a 28-year marriage.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home and the division of the respondent's pension as of the date of separation.

The court declined to impute income to the respondent on an interim basis, deferring the issue to trial.

Retroactive and ongoing interim spousal support were ordered based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, with credits given to the respondent for expenses paid towards the matrimonial home.

The applicant sought costs of $15,219.55 following a partially successful motion to change that terminated child support retroactively and ordered the respondent to repay $8,880.

The respondent, who was self-represented and had modest income, faced significant financial hardship from the substantive order.

Despite the applicant's favourable offers to settle, the court declined to award costs, finding that requiring the respondent to pay costs would constitute an unjustifiable hardship.

The applicant sought costs after a motion where success was divided.

The court considered factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including the divided success, the importance of the issue to the respondent, and the applicant's offers to settle, which, despite minor non-compliance, could have avoided the motion.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $2,000 in all-inclusive costs to the applicant, considering the respondent's limited means and proportionality.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a 2004 custody and support order after the parties' child moved primarily into his care in May 2014.

The father sought child support from the mother retroactive to May 2014, while the mother argued for a later start date due to periods where the child returned to her care.

The court found the child did not spend the required 40 percent of time with the mother to trigger shared custody provisions, ordering the mother to pay child support from May 1, 2014.

The court maintained the 50/50 sharing of extraordinary expenses and ordered the father to pay a reduced lump sum of $3,500 for past expenses claimed by the mother.

Following a family law trial where the applicant was substantially successful on the issue of spousal support, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court noted that the respondent's failure to fully disclose her financial situation in a timely manner unnecessarily increased the length and complexity of the litigation.

The applicant was awarded $30,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, to be deducted from the amount he owed for the equalization of net family property.

This trial decision addresses outstanding issues in a divorce proceeding, including the respondent's annual income for support, spousal support entitlement and quantum, retroactivity of support, and special child expenses.

The court imputed income to the respondent due to inadequate disclosure and unreasonable business expense deductions, averaging her income over four years.

The applicant was awarded indefinite spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, recognizing his economic disadvantage and contributions to the respondent's career.

Child and spousal support were made retroactive, with arrears offset against the equalization payment.

Special expenses for the child were to be shared proportionately.

Following a motion to change concerning child support in a hybrid parenting arrangement—where one child resided primarily with one parent and another child shared residence—the parties resolved the substantive support issues but disputed costs.

The court had previously accepted the respondent’s proposed hybrid set-off approach to calculating child support and ordered retroactive support along with reduced section 7 expenses.

In determining costs under Rule 24, the court considered the closeness of the respondent’s settlement offer to the ultimate result and the reasonableness of both parties’ litigation conduct.

Although the applicant argued that the respondent’s earlier refusal to address arrears and alternative dispute resolution increased litigation costs, the court found the respondent was the successful party.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant brought a motion to change child support in a hybrid custody arrangement where one child resided primarily with the mother and another child was shared between the parents.

The court reviewed approaches to calculating child support in hybrid custody situations under the Child Support Guidelines, including the economies of scale approach and the hybrid set‑off method discussed in prior case law.

After considering the parties’ respective incomes, household circumstances, and the absence of a detailed Contino budget analysis, the court adopted a middle-ground approach and set support above the basic set‑off amount but below the table amount for two children.

Retroactive adjustment was limited to June 2011.

The court also ruled that only certain extracurricular registration fees qualified as section 7 extraordinary expenses.

Following a bifurcated family law and civil assault trial, the court determined the appropriate costs award between the parties.

The respondent succeeded on a damages claim arising from an assault and obtained damages, future care costs, and prejudgment interest, while the applicant obtained a modest additional equalization payment relating to disputed chattels.

The court considered offers to settle, the parties’ conduct under the Family Law Rules, and the proportionality of costs to the issues and outcome.

Full indemnity costs were declined because the result was less favourable than an earlier formal offer to settle.

The court awarded substantial partial indemnity costs for the damages claim, offset by limited costs payable to the applicant for the chattels claim and an adjournment caused by deficient pleadings.

The parties separated after a short-term marriage following an incident where the respondent suffered a severely fractured wrist.

The trial addressed the division of net family property, specifically missing items the applicant claimed were in the respondent's possession, and the respondent's civil claim for damages for assault and battery.

The court found the applicant failed to prove the respondent retained most of the missing property, but added $10,000 to the equalization payment for missing silver.

On the tort claim, the court found the applicant committed battery by throwing the respondent out of the house, causing her injury.

The court awarded the respondent $65,000 in general and aggravated damages, $25,000 for loss of competitive advantage, and specific future care costs to be calculated.

The appellant appealed a trial decision finding that a cottage he received from his father was a matrimonial home, valuing motorcycles at $27,000, and awarding substantial indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding abundant evidence supported the trial judge's conclusion that the cottage was used regularly by the family and served as collateral for the primary home.

The court also found no error in the valuation of the motorcycles or the costs award.