Paul A. MacLeod

This decision addresses the final calculation of equalization payment and costs following a 13-day trial.

The court found the applicant, Daniel Parry, to be the successful party and awarded him costs on a full indemnity basis due to the respondent, Eda Parry's, unreasonable and bad faith conduct throughout the litigation, including breaches of court orders, failure to disclose, and untruthfulness.

The court reduced the claimed fees slightly for proportionality on minor issues.

The Applicant sought costs of approximately $56,000, while the Respondent proposed costs based on her actual expenses of about $44,000.

The Applicant was successful in the underlying case, which concerned the relocation of children, an issue the Respondent had conceded two years prior.

The court awarded the Applicant $40,000 in costs, representing almost full indemnity, to be paid by the Respondent.

The parties separated in 2015 and proceeded to a family law trial to resolve issues of decision-making, parenting time, spousal support, and financial adjustments.

The mother sought sole decision-making and relied on allegations of domestic violence, which the court found to be overstated and not a factor in decision-making.

The court awarded joint decision-making and increased the father's parenting time, though it denied his request for an equal timesharing schedule.

The court imputed an income of $30,000 to the mother and ordered the father to pay mid-range spousal support for a time-limited duration of three further years.

Various financial adjustments to the equalization payment were also ordered.

The respondent brought a motion to change a 2015 order that granted sole custody of the parties' child to the applicant with no access to the respondent.

The respondent sought supervised access, proposing supervision by Pathstone for three months, followed by Gordon Mooney.

The court found that it was not in the child's best interest to be exposed to the respondent at this time due to his ongoing and intractable heroin addiction, repeated relapses, and mental health issues.

The respondent's plan for supervised access was also deemed impractical and would cause significant hardship to the applicant.

The motion to change was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.

The parties separated after a 16-year relationship.

The applicant husband sought to enforce a 1997 cohabitation agreement that waived spousal support and dictated the division of the matrimonial home proceeds.

The respondent wife argued the agreement was invalid due to lack of financial disclosure and independent legal advice.

The court upheld the agreement, finding the wife had a general awareness of the husband's assets and chose not to seek independent legal advice despite having ample time.

Applying the Miglin framework, the court upheld the spousal support waiver, noting the wife was deliberately underemployed and imputing income to her.

However, the court found the husband breached the agreement regarding the matrimonial home proceeds by attempting to deduct monies advanced by his mother, which the court characterized as gifts to the husband rather than joint debts.

The husband was ordered to pay child support based on an income of $73,000.

Following a contempt finding in a family law matter for failure to comply with an access order, the court addressed costs.

The responding party in the contempt motion sought full indemnity costs exceeding $12,000, while the opposing party argued for a substantially lower award.

The court reviewed the dockets, hourly rates, travel time, and the complexity of the motion, concluding that the time claimed was excessive.

Applying the principles from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court fixed a fair and reasonable costs award.

Costs of $6,000 were ordered payable by the party found in contempt.

Following a family law trial concerning equalization of net family property, a prior costs award had granted the respondent substantial costs after he obtained a large equalization judgment.

After judgment, a serious error was discovered in the respondent’s net family property statement regarding the date-of-marriage value of his pension, which altered the equalization calculation and prompted an appeal.

The parties ultimately settled before the appeal hearing on the basis that the applicant owed a significantly reduced equalization payment.

The court reconsidered the earlier costs award and the costs of the appeal, finding that the respondent’s erroneous financial disclosure contributed to the litigation while the applicant achieved only partial success on appeal.

The court rescinded the earlier costs order and directed that each party bear their own costs.

Following a family law equalization judgment requiring the applicant spouse to pay the respondent spouse $89,502.95, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The respondent sought a combination of partial indemnity and full recovery costs based on offers to settle made before trial.

The court held the offers did not comply with Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules and therefore could not trigger full recovery cost consequences, though the applicant’s failure to make any offer and rejection of the respondent’s offers were adverse factors.

After considering proportionality and the factors in Rules 18 and 24, the court fixed partial indemnity costs in favour of the respondent.

A family law proceeding concerning child support and repayment of an overpayment arising from earlier court orders.

The court considered the applicant’s income for multiple years and the respondent’s request for retroactive and ongoing child support for a university‑attending child primarily residing with the respondent.

The respondent sought amounts representing approximately 50% of the Child Support Guidelines table values and did not claim post‑secondary expenses.

The court accepted the requested amounts, ordered payment of the outstanding balance of a prior support overpayment with interest, and fixed costs payable to the respondent.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the respondent's liquor licence for alleged violations of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting that the licensee permitted drunkenness, served an intoxicated patron, and permitted marijuana smoking on the licensed patio.

The Board accepted the joint submission on disposition and ordered a 21-day suspension of the liquor licence.