Pam MacEachern

The applicant mother initiated proceedings for divorce, custody, and relocation to Saudi Arabia.

She unilaterally removed the child to Saudi Arabia and ceased participation in the Canadian proceedings.

The court dismissed her application and proceeded with the respondent father's counterclaims.

The court found Ontario to be the habitual residence of the child and the proper jurisdiction for custody.

The mother was found in contempt of prior court orders for failing to return the child.

The court awarded sole custody of the child to the father, ordered the child's immediate return to Ottawa, issued a warrant for the mother's arrest, and terminated interim child support payable by the father.

The Estate Trustee During Litigation brought a motion for directions regarding the final distribution of the estate.

The sole issue was whether a beneficiary was entitled to reimbursement of $40,000 in legal fees incurred after the trustee's appointment.

The fees were incurred in relation to defending the estate against fraudulent claims by another beneficiary, who was criminally convicted.

The court found that while costs awards to beneficiaries are not the ordinary course, the beneficiary's participation was partially necessary and benefited the estate.

The court awarded the beneficiary $25,000 in costs, to be paid first from the fraudulent beneficiary's share of the estate, and the balance from the estate itself.

Following a trial regarding spousal support and equalization, both parties sought costs of $50,000, claiming they were the more successful party based on their respective offers to settle.

The court found that the applicant was the more successful party overall, having succeeded on the primary and most time-consuming issue of spousal support, as well as life insurance, while the respondent succeeded on equalization.

Finding the respondent's position denying spousal support unreasonable, the court awarded the applicant costs of $30,000.

Following the release of reasons for judgment in a family law matter, the parties requested clarifications and corrections regarding life insurance obligations and spousal support indexation.

The court corrected the name of the life insurer and the details of the respondent's death benefit.

The court also ordered that spousal support be indexed annually to the Consumer Price Index and permitted the respondent to apply in the future to reduce the required life insurance amount.

The applicant's request to vary the quantum of spousal support based on new evidence was dismissed.

This is a costs decision supplementary to the Court of Appeal's February 3, 2017 judgment allowing in part an appeal from an application judge's order regarding spousal support and insurance benefits.

The appellant sought to set aside the application judge's costs award to the respondent and obtain costs for both the application and appeal.

The respondent sought to maintain the costs award and obtain additional costs for the appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that unusual circumstances existed because the appropriate reduction to the respondent's obligations remained open for determination by another application judge, warranting a departure from the general principle that the successful party on appeal receives costs below.

The Court reserved costs of the application and any further application to the application judge and awarded the appellant costs of the appeal in the amount of $13,000.

The appellant wife appealed an order terminating her spousal support and life insurance obligations upon the respondent husband's retirement.

The respondent, a surgeon earning over $250,000 USD annually, sought to terminate support effective June 1, 2016, when he planned to retire with projected income of $35,000-$40,000 USD annually.

The application judge found a material change in circumstances and terminated the support.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the application judge erred in concluding the parties would be in financially similar circumstances post-retirement.

The court held that the support should be reduced rather than terminated, and remitted the matter for recalculation.

The parties separated after a 31-year marriage during which both had successful careers in the public service.

The applicant sought spousal support, equalization of net family property, and life insurance to secure support.

The court found the applicant entitled to both compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, noting she assumed primary childcare responsibilities which allowed the respondent to advance to Deputy Minister.

The court determined the commencement date for support, valued the parties' pensions using standard mortality, and addressed post-separation income increases and double-dipping.

The respondent was ordered to pay a lump sum for retroactive support, ongoing periodic support, and to designate the applicant as beneficiary on life insurance policies.

The plaintiff, Phillip Owen, withdrew his claim against the Estate of Barbara Owen and consented to judgment on the counterclaim.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs.

The defendants, including the Litigation Guardian and the Estate Trustee, sought full indemnity costs due to the plaintiff's vexatious conduct, including fraud and non-compliance with court orders.

The court found the defendants successful and awarded full indemnity costs, albeit reduced from the amounts claimed, to both the Litigation Guardian ($60,500) and the Estate Trustee ($30,000), payable by the plaintiff.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal of his family law application under Rule 39(12) of the Family Law Rules and sought to revive claims for spousal support and unjust enrichment arising from a long-term cohabitation relationship.

The court considered the framework for setting aside administrative dismissals, including the explanation for delay, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the responding party.

The court found the applicant had repeatedly failed to comply with prior court orders and disclosure undertakings, had delayed in bringing the motion, and had not demonstrated a compelling underlying claim.

Significant prejudice to the respondent was also established due to legal costs and reliance on the dismissal.

Balancing the relevant factors, the court refused to set aside the clerk’s dismissal order and confirmed that the proceeding remained dismissed.

Following a family law trial concerning spousal support and equalization of net family property, the court addressed costs.

The parties disputed entitlement to costs and relied on multiple offers to settle, some of which were made on the eve of trial and therefore fell outside the cost consequences under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that although success was divided, the respondent spouse was overall more successful on the most contentious issues, including the quantum of spousal support.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded, but full or substantial indemnity costs were declined given the complexity of the issues and partial success of the other party.

The court also declined to award pre‑judgment interest on the equalization payment.

Following competing interim family law motions, the court invited written submissions on costs where either party believed their offers to settle met the requirements of Rule 18 of the Family Court Rules.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs, arguing the outcome was as favourable or more favourable than his offers to settle.

The court held that the applicant’s offers were not severable and therefore had to be assessed as a whole.

Because the final orders were less favourable to the applicant on several key issues, including the matrimonial home, imputed income, child support set-off, and section 7 expense proportions, the applicant failed to meet the burden under Rule 18(15).

No costs were awarded.

The payor spouse brought a motion to change seeking termination of indefinite spousal support following early retirement at age 55 due to alleged depression and reduced income.

The court held that voluntary retirement and a decrease in income do not automatically constitute a material change in circumstances under s. 17 of the Divorce Act.

The evidence did not establish that the retirement was medically necessary or that the payor lacked continued earning capacity.

The court also found deficiencies and inconsistencies in the payor’s financial disclosure.

The motion to terminate support was dismissed and support of $1,000 per month was ordered to continue until the recipient reaches age 64.

On cross-motions for interim family law relief following separation, the court addressed parenting time, support, a custody and access assessment, and the disposition of the matrimonial home.

Applying the interim custody principle that the status quo should generally be maintained absent compelling evidence, the court found the father’s increased involvement with the children since separation supported an equal parenting arrangement and ordered a week‑on/week‑off schedule.

Interim child support was calculated on a high-income payor basis using a weighted average income of approximately $670,554 for the father and $15,000 for the mother, with set‑off child support and spousal support determined using the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court also ordered the sale of the matrimonial home under the Partition Act to allow the mother access to her equity.

A custody and access assessment was directed.

Following a 25‑year marriage, the parties disputed spousal support quantum, child support for an adult child, ownership of a Québec cottage property, and equalization of net family property.

The court determined the separation and valuation date and addressed spousal support using the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines in circumstances where the payor’s income exceeded $350,000.

Income was imputed to the recipient spouse due to limited job‑search efforts, and spousal support was fixed with a future review.

The court found unjust enrichment principles potentially supported a proprietary claim by the respondent in the cottage property but held that Ontario lacked jurisdiction to determine title to land in Québec.

A temporary stay of the equalization calculation was ordered pending resolution of the Québec ownership proceeding.

Following a motion concerning temporary child and spousal support, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant sought full recovery costs of $17,283 after obtaining support orders exceeding her prior offers to settle.

The respondent argued each party should bear their own costs or that any award should be substantially reduced, asserting that the claimed fees were excessive and noting the applicant’s tax deductibility of legal fees.

The court found the applicant presumptively entitled to costs but declined to award substantial indemnity costs.

After adjusting the claimed amount and considering tax deductibility under the Courts of Justice Act, the court fixed costs at $14,000 and reduced them by the applicant’s marginal tax rate.

The court determined the costs payable following a motion arising after an earlier order directing the sale of property.

The responding party sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $4,282 for the subsequent motion, while the opposing party argued that only $1,000 was appropriate.

The court held that the conduct of the opposing party after the initial order made the second motion necessary and that the moving party was entitled to costs.

However, the court found the claimed amount excessive for a straightforward matter and assessed partial indemnity costs at approximately 55% of reasonable actual costs.

Costs were fixed at $1,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The parties disputed the sale of jointly owned property following a prior court endorsement directing that the property be listed for sale and allowing the respondent to make a commission‑free offer.

Instead of listing the property, the applicant engaged in a series of counteroffers with the respondent and ultimately attempted to accept her own higher bid.

The court found that the applicant disregarded the previously ordered sale procedure and failed to approach the court with clean hands.

The court held that the respondent’s earlier offer constituted the “first reasonable offer” contemplated by the prior endorsement and ordered that the transaction proceed on that basis, subject to closing and accounting arrangements.

The applicant moved to set aside an administrative dismissal of a family law application seeking equalization and related relief.

The court applied the principles governing motions to set aside dismissal orders and found the delay was largely attributable to prior counsel, the applicant moved with reasonable promptness after learning of the dismissal, and the respondent suffered no prejudice.

The administrative dismissal was therefore set aside.

On the respondent’s cross-application for partition and sale of the former matrimonial home, the court held that a joint owner has a prima facie right to sale and the resisting party had not established a prima facie competing interest under the Family Law Act.

The home was ordered sold with a portion of proceeds held pending determination of equalization.

The applicant sought an order for partition and sale of a jointly owned residential property following the breakdown of the parties’ relationship.

Although the respondent preferred to purchase the applicant’s interest, prior court-imposed conditions had not been satisfied and the matter had been delayed.

The court ordered that the property be immediately listed for sale, while permitting the respondent to submit an offer to purchase that would avoid realtor commission if accepted.

Issues relating to accounting for property-related expenses and final distribution adjustments were adjourned pending further determination.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The applicant sought to access funds from his locked-in retirement account (LIRA) and terminate spousal support.

The respondent cross-moved for contempt, payment of arrears, and a lump sum spousal support award from the LIRA.

The court found the applicant had a history of non-disclosure, intentionally depleted assets, and failed to pay support despite having the means.

To ensure future support and satisfy arrears, the court ordered a $200,000 lump sum transfer from the applicant's LIRA to the respondent and directed that $24,150 previously authorized for withdrawal be paid to the respondent for arrears.