Natalie Bazar

The applicant mother sought joint custody, parallel decision-making, and equal parenting time of the parties' 10-year-old child.

The respondent father sought sole custody and decision-making responsibility, with the child spending 5 out of 14 days with the mother, along with therapeutic interventions.

The court found that the mother engaged in egregious post-separation conduct, including making unfounded allegations of physical and sexual abuse against the father, which caused emotional harm to the child and raised significant concerns of parental alienation.

Relying on expert assessments, the court concluded that the mother was unable to co-parent and that her hostility towards the father remained unresolved.

The court awarded sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence to the father, limited the mother's parenting time to 5 out of 14 days, and ordered therapeutic supervision for the mother.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a 9-day trial where the applicant, Joan Ann Mary Fox, was largely successful in her claims for spousal and child support arrears.

The court found the respondent, James Henry Fox, acted in bad faith due to extensive financial non-disclosure, deliberate destruction of business records, and causing extraordinary delay in the litigation.

The respondent's offers to settle were deemed unreasonable, partly because they did not include costs and were made without adequate financial disclosure.

Consequently, the applicant was awarded costs on a full recovery basis, subject to minor adjustments for duplication of counsel work, travel time, previous counsel's fees, and a small amount for the respondent's limited success on four minor issues.

In additional reasons following a family law trial, the court resolved four outstanding issues regarding spousal support arrears.

The court confirmed the adjusted support commenced on the date of the application, accepted the parties' agreement on pre-judgment interest, and determined the net after-tax spousal support owing was $666,000 by factoring in the tax deductions for legal fees actually utilized by the applicant.

The court dismissed the applicant's claim for lost RRSP savings as speculative and not advanced at trial.

At the commencement of a family law trial, the respondent father sought to introduce bank records as proof of his payment of section 7 expenses.

The records had not been previously disclosed, despite a prior court order requiring their production within 60 days.

The court refused to admit the documents, finding that their late disclosure amounted to trial by ambush, prejudiced the applicant mother's trial preparation, and formed part of a pattern of non-disclosure by the respondent.

Following a 22-year marriage, the applicant sought spousal support, retroactive child support, and remedies for spoliation of evidence and civil contempt.

The court found the applicant entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, refusing to impute full-time income to her.

The court included the respondent's significant post-separation income increases in the support calculation, ordering indefinite spousal support of $16,734 per month.

The court also ordered a retroactive adjustment for child and spousal support.

Furthermore, the court drew an adverse inference against the respondent for intentionally destroying business records (spoliation) and found him in civil contempt for selling a property in breach of a court order, imposing a $10,000 penalty.

The court determined costs for consolidated matrimonial and civil proceedings.

Barbara Ann Blatherwick sought full indemnity costs from Brian Earl Blatherwick and joint and several costs from Seasons (H.K.) Limited.

The court found Brian Earl Blatherwick acted in bad faith throughout the litigation, engaged in deliberate non-disclosure, and complicated the proceedings, warranting full indemnity costs.

Barbara Ann Blatherwick was awarded $1,401,031.31 against him.

Seasons (H.K.) Limited was also found to have acted in bad faith and engaged in reprehensible conduct by presenting false documents and evasive evidence, leading to an award of full indemnity costs of $147,877.41 against it.

This amount was included in the award against Brian Earl Blatherwick and made joint and several to that extent only.

The court rejected a broader joint and several liability for Seasons (H.K.) due to lack of notice and policy concerns regarding consolidation.

In the context of a family law dispute, the applicant brought a contempt motion against the respondent's former lawyers for allegedly receiving funds in breach of a Mareva injunction.

Both the applicant and the alleged contemnors brought motions for documentary production.

The court held that because contempt is a quasi-criminal proceeding, the alleged contemnors are not subject to the automatic disclosure obligations of the Rules of Civil Procedure and have a right against self-incrimination.

The court dismissed the applicant's request for an affidavit of documents but granted a preservation order against the lawyers.

The court also ordered the applicant to produce relevant communications to the alleged contemnors to allow them to make full answer and defence.