Monica Scholz

This motion concerned the adjournment of a 10-day family law trial primarily focused on parenting and child support.

The respondent mother sought the adjournment due to the applicant father's late disclosure of a significant change in his employment status.

The father opposed, arguing the change did not impact the main parenting issue.

The court granted the adjournment, acknowledging the court's inability to call the trial during scheduled sittings and the need to respect solicitor availability.

However, the mother's request for costs "thrown away" due to the late disclosure was dismissed, with the court deferring this to the trial judge and noting shared responsibility for systemic delays.

Mandatory questioning was ordered to resolve outstanding disclosure issues before any further settlement conference.

The mother brought a motion to change a final order to vary child support, section 7 expenses, and spousal support.

The father argued the adult child had repudiated their relationship and sought to terminate child support, or alternatively reduce it based on his decreased income.

The court found the father failed to prove repudiation.

The court imputed the father's income at $95,000 due to incomplete financial disclosure regarding his business, and set the mother's income at $58,819 for child support and $45,000 for spousal support.

The father was ordered to pay his proportionate share of the child's final year of college expenses, and child support was ordered to continue until September 2021 to allow a transition period after graduation.

Spousal support was increased to $1,495 per month commencing after child support terminates.

The parties in a family law proceeding brought three motions.

The applicant sought leave to amend her application to add claims for spousal support and a declaration of beneficial ownership of a cottage lot, and an order dispensing with the respondent's consent to the sale of the matrimonial home and cottage property.

The respondent sought orders regarding the listing agent for the matrimonial home, delaying the sale of the cottage property, and disposing of business assets.

The court granted the applicant leave to amend her application regarding spousal support but adjourned the request regarding the trust claim for further argument.

The court dismissed the applicant's request to dispense with the respondent's consent to the sale of the properties.

The court ordered the applicant's choice of listing agent for the matrimonial home, adjourned the timing of the cottage sale, and ordered that the business assets remain on the premises until valued.

Following a temporary order that dismissed the applicant's request for interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and granted the respondent's motion for its sale, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought $15,137.37 in partial indemnity costs, while the applicant sought $23,995.00, arguing the respondent's unreasonable conduct justified a costs award in her favour despite her lack of success.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and awarded him costs, but applied a downward adjustment to account for his response to an offer to settle and his post-separation conduct, fixing costs at $10,000.

The parties separated after 39 years of marriage but continued to reside in the jointly-owned matrimonial home.

The applicant sought interim exclusive possession of the home, a non-depletion order, and restoration of the financial status quo.

The respondent sought an order for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the applicant's request for exclusive possession, finding insufficient evidence of violence or threat to well-being.

The court granted the respondent's motion for the sale of the matrimonial home, and the applicant's cross-motion for the sale of the jointly-owned cottage, finding no prejudice to the applicant's Family Law Act rights.

The request for a non-depletion order was largely dismissed, though the respondent was ordered to continue paying home expenses.

The applicant sought costs after successfully obtaining an order for the return of his child and joint custody, following the respondent's unilateral relocation of the child.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith by removing the child without consultation, despite a prior joint custody order.

The court awarded the applicant $5,000 in costs, balancing the bad faith conduct with the impact on the custody order.

The respondent brought a motion to establish summer time-sharing arrangements for the parties' child, which was granted.

The respondent subsequently sought costs of $5,820.54 for the motion.

The court found the respondent was entirely successful and acted reasonably, while the applicant acted unreasonably by missing deadlines and presenting non-compliant proposals.

However, the court found both parties' costs claims excessive.

The court awarded the self-represented respondent costs of $1,760.00, representing 80% of a reasonable full indemnity amount.

The maternal grandparents sought full indemnity costs of $21,008.73 against the mother following a successful motion for make-up access.

The court found that the mother had acted in bad faith by deliberately obstructing the grandparents' court-ordered access and raising unsubstantiated abuse allegations.

The court rejected the mother's request to apportion costs to the father.

After reviewing the bill of costs and making adjustments for excessive claims and unrelated tasks, the court awarded the grandparents full indemnity costs fixed at $13,190.00, payable in two installments due to the mother's limited financial means.

In a child protection proceeding, the maternal grandmother and step-grandfather brought a motion for access to their five-year-old grandchild.

The mother had terminated their access after the child's father was arrested for alleged sexual offences against the child, believing the grandmother had coached the child's disclosure.

The Society took no position on the motion.

Applying the Chapman principles, the court found that a positive grandparent-grandchild relationship existed and that the mother's decision to terminate access was arbitrary and contrary to the child's best interests.

The court granted temporary access, initially supervised.

The parties separated in 2009 after a brief marriage and having one child.

They agreed to equal time-sharing of the child.

The court determined the dates of cohabitation and separation, and calculated the applicant's income for support purposes.

The court imputed an annual income of $40,000 to the respondent, finding she was intentionally unemployed.

The court ordered the applicant to pay spousal support of $5,000 per month for a fixed term based on a needs-based analysis, and child support of $1,615 per month based on a set-off of the parties' table amounts under the shared custody provisions of the Child Support Guidelines.

Retroactive support was ordered effective January 1, 2010.

In a family law motion to change, the moving party sought to reduce child support and suspend spousal support following alleged employment termination.

The responding party sought dismissal of the motion due to repeated non‑compliance with court orders, including failure to provide disclosure, failure to attend court, and failure to comply with support-related obligations.

Applying Rules 1(8), 13(17), and 14(23) of the Family Law Rules and the court’s inherent jurisdiction, the court found persistent and deliberate disregard for court orders and the litigation process.

The motion to change was dismissed, the moving party’s materials were struck, and the responding party’s claims were permitted to proceed on an uncontested basis.

Additional remedial orders were made requiring reimbursement of expenses, imposing conditions on any future proceedings, and requiring security for costs before further litigation could be initiated.