Noel A. Nolasco da Silva

The applicant was unsuccessful on her motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The respondent sought costs of $13,702.77 as the successful party.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, including the importance and complexity of the issues, and the applicant's unreasonable behaviour.

The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $8,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable by a specified date or from the applicant's share of the proceeds of the sale of a jointly owned property.

The applicant spouse brought a motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home under s. 24(3) of the Family Law Act, alleging that the respondent’s aggressive conduct and her declining health made continued cohabitation intolerable.

The respondent denied the allegations and argued the motion was strategic within the broader family law litigation.

The court reviewed the statutory factors under s. 24(3), including financial circumstances, written agreements, alternative accommodation, and alleged violence.

The evidence consisted of sharply conflicting affidavits, and the court found insufficient reliable evidence to establish psychological violence or other statutory grounds warranting exclusive possession.

The applicant therefore failed to meet the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities.

The father brought a motion to vary a final consent order to expand his access to his two children.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing it should not be heard because the father was in arrears of child support and costs, and denying she had breached the access order.

The court held that the father's arrears did not preclude his motion because he had reduced them and provided a reasonable explanation.

The court found the mother had intentionally breached the access order by prioritizing the children's hockey commitments over the father's access.

Finding a material change in circumstances, the court expanded the father's access to at least 35%, rescinded a prior restraining order against him, and changed the access exchange location to reduce conflict.

A family law motion concerning parenting time over the Christmas holiday period.

The parties consented to a schedule granting the respondent specified holiday access with the children on three defined periods between December 2013 and January 2014.

The court ordered the schedule on consent and adjourned the balance of the motion to a later date for further consideration.

The parties were granted leave to file additional materials before the adjourned hearing and costs were reserved.