Pam MacEachern

The parties separated and the mother subsequently denied the father access to their three children following allegations that he and his mother physically assaulted the oldest child.

The father, who was criminally charged regarding the oldest child, sought interim access to the two younger children.

The mother argued access should be supervised pending a child protection investigation.

The court found no evidence of risk to the younger children and ordered graduated, unsupervised interim access for the father.

The moving party brought a motion to strike the responding party's motion to change a final parenting order, arguing that the responding party had failed to pay a previous costs award of $20,201.

Alternatively, the moving party sought an order requiring the responding party to post $60,000 in security for costs.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the unpaid costs were subject to a consumer proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and therefore did not constitute wilful non-compliance.

The court also declined to order security for costs, concluding that the responding party's motion raised genuine issues regarding the child's best interests and that such an order would act as an unjust financial roadblock.

At a family law case conference, the court reviewed the litigation history and the respondent's Answer, which improperly sought to re-litigate issues already decided in a previous trial.

The court struck the respondent's Answer for being deficient and ordered him to file a new, properly pleaded Answer within 30 days.

To promote the primary objective of the Family Law Rules, the court also issued procedural directions for a one-day focused hearing based on affidavit evidence and cross-examination, and ordered the respondent to pay $350 in costs for the case conference.

An uncontested trial was held where the applicant sought orders for joint custody with final decision-making authority, primary residence, child support, and section 7 expenses.

The respondent was in default.

The court granted the parenting orders as sought, determined the respondent's income for child support purposes, and ordered equal sharing of section 7 expenses, including child care, with provisions for tax deductions.

The court also ordered the respondent to maintain life insurance to secure child support.

The applicant withdrew her claim for equalization.

A final divorce order was to be issued incorporating the corollary relief.

No costs were awarded.

An uncontested family law trial addressing divorce, custody, child support, and section 7 expenses.

The applicant sought sole custody and financial orders, while the respondent was in default.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant, imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes, ordered contributions to special expenses, and mandated life insurance to secure support.

Costs were awarded against the defaulting respondent.

This endorsement determines costs following a motion to change parenting terms.

Both the applicant and respondent sought costs, each claiming greater success.

The court found that success was divided, as neither party achieved all the relief they sought.

The respondent's offers to settle did not entitle her to costs under Rule 18(14) because the outcome was not more favourable than her offers, and the offers included unassessed child support issues.

The court also found that neither party's conduct was unreasonable enough to warrant a sanction of costs.

Consequently, no order for costs was made for the motion.

This endorsement determines costs following a motion heard on April 23, 2019.

The respondent, Joseph Patrick McAuley, was the successful party on the underlying motion and sought costs fixed at $9,221.95.

The applicant, Stephanie Melanie Caresse McAuley (also referred to as Ms. Kieffer-Wolf), opposed the requested amount, arguing the fees were excessive and that the respondent acted unreasonably.

The court found the respondent's legal fees reasonable and proportional, and that his offer to settle was as favourable or more favourable than the motion's outcome.

The court also found the applicant's conduct on the motion unreasonable, particularly her insistence on a parenting schedule that did not reflect the status quo and her failure to be forthcoming about medical issues.

Costs were fixed at $8,300 in favour of the respondent, reflecting 60% of pre-offer costs and 100% of post-offer costs, plus disbursements and tax.

This endorsement determines costs following a prior motion.

The court granted the respondent's request for late filing of cost submissions, finding no prejudice to the applicant.

The applicant sought full recovery of costs ($12,509.67) as the successful party on the underlying motion and due to an offer to settle.

The respondent sought full recovery of his costs ($14,128.25), arguing greater success and unreasonable conduct by the applicant.

The court found the applicant to be the successful party, supported by her reasonable offer to settle, which was more favorable than the respondent's offers.

However, the court did not find either party's conduct unreasonable to warrant full recovery.

Costs were fixed at $8,000 in favor of the applicant, enforceable as child support.

The Family Responsibility Office (FRO) initiated a default hearing against the respondent for child support arrears.

The respondent brought a motion to stay enforcement pending the determination of his separate motion to set aside/stay underlying orders.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion to stay, finding that his outstanding motion did not challenge the specific child support order being enforced.

The court also determined that the respondent failed to provide adequate financial disclosure to demonstrate an inability to pay ongoing support.

The court ordered the respondent to continue paying ongoing child support of $450/month and adjourned the default hearing to address arrears and potential imprisonment.

Costs were awarded against the respondent for unreasonable procedural conduct.

The applicant sought increased child support, retroactive support, and contribution to s.7 expenses.

The respondent sought increased access and opposed increased child support, claiming undue hardship due to support obligations for other children.

The court determined the incomes of both parties and found that the respondent would suffer undue hardship if required to pay the full table amount of child support, considering his support obligations to six other children and a lower household standard of living.

The court ordered child support of $400 per month, retroactive to January 1, 2015, with arrears payable at $150 per month.

Contribution to s.7 expenses was declined due to undue hardship.

The respondent's access was increased to alternate Sundays from noon to 5 p.m., citing the child's wishes and increased age as a material change in circumstances.

Further access was declined without demonstrated consistency and a Voice of the Child Report.

The respondent's blameworthy conduct in failing to provide tax returns justified the retroactive support award.

The applicant sought a retroactive increase in child support from January 2013, while the respondent opposed and claimed overpayment.

The court imputed income to the applicant due to voluntary underemployment and determined both parties' incomes for child support purposes.

Applying the D.B.S. principles, the court found the respondent liable for retroactive child support from January 2013, adjusting the amount to reflect the original separation agreement's deviation from Child Support Guideline table amounts.

The court also addressed s.7 expenses, life insurance obligations, and Child Tax Benefit claims, ultimately ordering a set-off of the respondent's arrears against the applicant's future child support obligations.

The applicant sought to revert to a 2016 primary residence schedule for the children after a period of hospitalization, while the respondent sought an interim interim equal timesharing arrangement and Office of the Children's Lawyer involvement.

The court found that the pre-hospitalization status quo involved a more flexible schedule with significant time spent with the father.

The court ordered an interim interim timesharing arrangement where the children are with the mother Monday to Thursday and with the father Thursday to Monday, reflecting the pre-hospitalization flexible schedule more closely than the 2016 order.

The court also ordered a referral to the Office of the Children's Lawyer and vacated a previous temporary order.

The parties, Frederick Kaszap (applicant) and Amber Volk (respondent), were involved in a high-conflict parenting dispute concerning their two children, M. (12) and C. (8).

The applicant sought reunification counselling for M., who refused contact with him, and opposed the respondent's request for sole custody of both children.

The respondent opposed reunification counselling for M. and sought sole custody, citing ongoing conflict.

The court granted the respondent sole custody of M., declining to order reunification counselling due to M.'s distress and the lack of a detailed therapeutic proposal.

For C., the court maintained joint custody but granted the respondent sole decision-making authority regarding the frequency of C.'s counselling due to the applicant's uncooperative behaviour.

A neutral third-party mental health professional was ordered to regularly assess M.'s views on contact and counselling.

The parties sought to vary an existing parenting order concerning their ten-year-old child.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the child's age, special needs, and preferences, as well as changes in transfer logistics.

The court adjusted the regular access schedule to remove school-night overnights and replace them with a Friday afternoon visit, and modified the summer access to three four-day periods plus one weekend.

Prescribed telephone call times were removed, replaced by child-initiated communication, with the respondent responsible for facilitating communication during long access gaps.

Transfer locations were changed from police stations to a neutral public location, with school pick-ups for Friday access.

The applicant was ordered to sign passport applications and both parties to use "Our Family Wizard" for communication.

Child support issues were adjourned pending financial disclosure.

The respondent's requests for a further life insurance order and a restraining order were dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

Mr. Debassige, a member of the M’Chigeeng First Nation, sought to vary a parenting schedule to increase the children's connection to their First Nation's heritage, including changing their primary residence to Ottawa, having them attend school in Ottawa, and specific time for Indigenous events.

Ms. Wakeling opposed these claims, arguing there was no material change in circumstances and that she supported the children's heritage.

Ms. Wakeling also sought an order preventing Mr. Debassige from bringing further variation motions without leave.

The court found no material change warranting a change in primary residence or school attendance.

However, it did find a material change regarding the ongoing conflict over Aboriginal Day and powwow schedules, which warranted a variation to provide clarity.

The court varied the schedule to include specific provisions for these events and dental appointments, emphasizing the children's best interests and connection to their heritage.

Ms. Wakeling's request to prevent Mr. Debassige from bringing further motions was dismissed.

The respondent moved for interim spousal support, while the applicant cross-moved for the sale of the matrimonial home and summary judgment to dismiss the respondent's claim for an unequal division of sale proceeds.

The court granted interim spousal support to the respondent, ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, and dismissed the applicant's motion for partial summary judgment, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the oral agreement for unequal division of home proceeds.

The court determined costs following an urgent motion regarding child access.

The respondent sought $8,000 in costs, while the applicant argued no costs should be awarded due to divided success.

The court found that the respondent was more successful overall, as the access order largely mirrored her proposal, but reduced her costs due to her unreasonable insistence on a voluntary service agreement as a precondition to access and her disproportionate legal fees.

The respondent was awarded $2,000 in costs.

The respondent requested and was granted an adjournment on the first day of a scheduled six-day family law trial involving highly contested parenting issues.

The adjournment was granted on the condition that the respondent pay the applicant's costs thrown away.

The applicant sought $7,585.71 for 34.96 hours of wasted preparation time, while the respondent argued for $1,695 representing 7.5 hours.

The court found that significant preparation time would need to be redone, but reduced the claimed hours to account for tasks that were not completely wasted.

Costs thrown away were fixed at $6,102 inclusive of HST.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change child support.

The applicant, Ms. Glazer, sought significant retroactive child support, while the respondent, Mr. Hill, sought to terminate support.

The court previously ordered an increase in child support for a period and then its termination, dismissing most of Ms. Glazer's retroactive claims.

Mr. Hill, as the successful party, sought costs.

The court awarded Mr. Hill fixed costs of $6,500, payable in monthly installments, finding that his offer to settle was more favourable than the outcome and that Ms. Glazer's conduct was unreasonable in attempting to re-litigate previously settled issues.

The court declined to order enforcement of these costs through the Family Responsibility Office or to net out various payments between the parties.

This endorsement determines costs following a prior decision where the applicant's pleadings were struck.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs, arguing the applicant's conduct, including wilful failure to pay costs and comply with disclosure orders, and filing misleading financial statements, warranted such an award.

The court found the applicant's behaviour unreasonable, justifying a higher costs award, but not rising to the level of bad faith requiring full indemnity.

The respondent's legal fees were adjusted for reasonableness and proportionality, and the applicant was ordered to pay fixed costs of $9,250, inclusive of HST and disbursements, representing approximately 80% of the respondent's reasonable costs.