Natacha R. Leite

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking an order to permit her to travel internationally with the parties' 18-month-old child to Serbia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, and Croatia for family weddings.

The respondent father opposed, raising concerns about the length of the trip, loss of parenting time, and the lack of a detailed itinerary.

The court granted the motion, finding the travel was in the child's best interests to foster relationships with extended family and experience cultural heritage.

The court ordered the mother to provide a detailed itinerary and daily updates.

Following two motions where the applicant's application was struck in part and his motion to set aside an administrative dismissal was granted on terms, both parties sought costs.

The court found the respondent was the successful party as she achieved a result as good as her offer to settle.

Due to the applicant's unreasonable behavior and delay, the respondent was awarded costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court fixed the costs at $23,707.40 inclusive of HST, payable within 30 days.

The appellant father appealed an order from an uncontested trial where his pleadings were struck for non-disclosure in a child support motion to change.

The respondent mother brought a motion to quash the appeal, arguing the father lacked standing.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash, dismissing the appeal.

The court affirmed that parties whose pleadings are struck generally lack standing to appeal an uncontested trial order, finding no exceptional circumstances.

It clarified that evolving Section 7 expenses do not constitute new heads of relief requiring amended pleadings, distinguishing the case from Freedman v. Freedman.

The court emphasized the importance of disclosure in child support matters.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent mother brought a motion seeking extensive financial disclosure from the applicant father to calculate his income for child support purposes.

The father, who had recently started his own law firm, argued the requests were disproportionate and premature.

The court emphasized the importance of timely income disclosure but agreed that some of the mother's requests were overreaching.

The court granted a temporary order requiring the father to provide a narrowed scope of disclosure, balancing the need for financial transparency with the principle of proportionality.

Following a five-day family law trial regarding parenting time and decision-making authority, the successful applicant mother sought full indemnity costs of $148,019.00.

The respondent father argued the amount was excessive and proposed $25,000.00.

The court found that while the mother was successful and had made a comprehensive offer to settle, the father's conduct did not reach the high threshold of bad faith required for full indemnity costs.

The court determined the mother's claimed hours were excessive and awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $80,000.00.

The parties separated after 14 years of marriage and engaged in high-conflict litigation over parenting time and decision-making for their 12-year-old child.

The father sought joint decision-making and expanded parenting time, including overnights.

The mother sought sole decision-making and restricted daytime parenting time for the father.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer investigated and found the child strongly opposed overnight visits due to the father's behaviour and conflict.

The court gave significant weight to the child's independent views and preferences, awarding the mother sole decision-making and restricting the father's parenting time to daytime visits.

The parties brought urgent motions regarding their four-year-old child's school attendance and parenting schedule during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The mother sought an order for in-person attendance at a private school, while the father sought homeschooling or online learning, citing health risks.

The court ordered in-person attendance, finding no medical evidence of an unacceptable risk of harm to the child or the father.

The court also rejected the father's request for an equal time-sharing arrangement due to the high conflict between the parties, but ordered a graduated increase in his parenting time, including overnights.

The respondent mother brought a motion for financial disclosure from the applicant father and non-party corporations to determine the father's income for child support purposes.

The father, who is self-employed through a numbered company that owns 50% of another corporation, opposed the motion along with the non-party co-owner, arguing the request was disproportionate and sought confidential information.

The court granted the motion, ordering extensive corporate and personal financial disclosure, finding it necessary to determine the father's true income.

The court declined to issue a sealing order for the corporate documents, finding a confidentiality agreement and redactions sufficient, but ordered a limited publication ban to protect the children's identities.

The applicant successfully brought a motion to discharge a writ of execution registered against the matrimonial home by the respondent's former solicitor for unpaid legal fees.

The applicant then sought full indemnity costs for the motion.

The court awarded costs of $8,667.79 on a full indemnity basis, finding that the applicant had made a reasonable offer to settle that exceeded the third party's recovery, and that the third party had taken unreasonable positions in opposing the motion.

Following a family law motion concerning exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, custody, access, and support, the court determined costs of the motion.

The responding party had made a settlement offer before the case conference that was more favourable on key issues than the final order.

Although the offer did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules because it did not address support and the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, the court considered the offer under Rule 18(16) when fixing costs.

The court also found aspects of the applicant’s conduct unreasonable under Rule 24.

Substantial indemnity costs of the motion were awarded to the successful party in the amount of $9,000 payable within 60 days.

In a family law motion following separation, the respondent sought temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and primary residence of the children.

The parties continued living under the same roof after separation, while serious behavioural issues had emerged for one child amid parental conflict.

Applying s. 24(3) of the Family Law Act, the court held that the best interests of the children—particularly the need to reduce household conflict affecting the child—justified granting exclusive possession.

Evidence indicated the respondent had historically been the primary caregiver, supporting an order that the children reside primarily with her.

The court also ordered guideline child support based on the applicant’s income but declined to award temporary spousal support.