Paul C. Buttigieg

The court considered costs following a full settlement in a family law case involving decision-making, parenting time, and child support.

The applicant sought full recovery costs, arguing the final order was nearly identical to her earlier offer to settle and that the respondent acted unreasonably by not responding.

The court found the respondent had, in fact, responded with a detailed offer and that both parties had reasonable positions, with success divided on various issues.

The court determined that full indemnity costs were not warranted, and awarded the applicant $18,000 in costs, finding this amount fair and proportionate given the circumstances and the divided success.

The appellant, Jatinder Singh Dhillon, appealed a final order in family litigation, raising four grounds: a resulting trust claim, quantification of net family property, private school costs under s.7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, and "netting down" a lump sum retroactive spousal support award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, finding no legal or palpable and overriding factual error.

The court emphasized that judges are not required to make tax adjustments for retroactive spousal support awards unless specifically requested and that such adjustments are discretionary, especially where non-disclosure of income could lead to a windfall.

The applicant sought child support, spousal support, equalization, and vesting of the matrimonial home due to the respondent's non-compliance and failure to participate in the uncontested trial.

The court imputed income to the respondent, awarded lump sum spousal support due to a history of non-payment, and granted a vesting order for the matrimonial home to satisfy the total financial obligations, including child support arrears, spousal support, equalization payment, and costs.

The parties attended a family law case conference.

The respondent husband revealed for the first time at the conference that he and his partners had sold their business the previous day, despite having negotiated the sale for five months.

The applicant wife sought leave to retain her own Chartered Business Valuator to prepare a comprehensive valuation of the respondent's business interest, which the respondent opposed on the basis that they had previously jointly retained a valuator who provided a calculation valuation.

The court granted the applicant leave to retain her own expert, finding that the respondent failed to comply with his financial disclosure obligations and that the previous calculation valuation provided little assurance of accuracy.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the conference due to his late disclosure, with the amount to be determined.

The applicant sought expanded access to the parties' child, while the respondent moved for summary judgment granting her sole custody.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion for expanded access and granted the respondent's motion for sole custody, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding custody and access.

The decision emphasized the child's best interests, the respondent's role as primary caregiver, and the applicant's inconsistent access, lack of stable accommodation, and failure to address support obligations and parental conflict.

The Applicant Father brought a motion seeking a change in custody, supervised access for the Respondent Mother, and a s. 30 assessment, primarily due to the Mother's highly inappropriate and vulgar conduct involving their child during a phone call.

The Mother admitted her conduct was inexcusable and had since enrolled in anger management and therapeutic counselling, seeking dismissal of the Father's motion and for the Minutes of Settlement to be made a court order.

The court dismissed the Father's motion, finding that while the Mother's conduct was deplorable, it appeared to be an isolated incident.

The court emphasized the importance of upholding the recent Minutes of Settlement and the potential for further litigation to negatively impact the children.

Specific orders were issued to prevent future inappropriate conduct, but the existing parenting arrangements were maintained, and a s. 30 assessment was not ordered at that time.

The appellant wife appealed a trial judge's decision on a change motion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, increasing the additional spousal support awarded by the trial judge due to the husband's early retirement and lump sum pension payout and other changed circumstances.

The court dismissed the wife's appeal challenging the denial of ongoing child support.

The parties were unable to agree on trial costs, and the court addressed this issue in a costs endorsement.

This case concerns a long-term marriage (26 years) that ended in divorce, with the applicant seeking spousal support and equalization of net family property.

The court determined that the applicant was entitled to non-compensatory spousal support, rejecting claims for contractual and compensatory support.

The court imputed an income of $47,000 per year to the applicant and calculated support at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

A review period for spousal support was ordered after three years, taking into account the applicant's voluntary withdrawal from the workforce and delay in claiming support.

The respondent's credibility was significantly questioned regarding his tax reporting and an alleged loan from his brother.

Appeal of a motion judge's decision on a change motion brought by the wife following the husband's early retirement and acceptance of an early pension payout.

The motion judge dismissed the wife's claim for child support for the youngest child and varied spousal support to $5,000 per month, significantly below the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range of $6,000 to $8,000 per month.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, dismissing the child support claim but allowing the spousal support appeal.

The appellate court found the motion judge erred in departing from the Guidelines based on the "good luck" of the early pension payout and the wife's alleged financial mismanagement.

The court also found the motion judge misapprehended the Guidelines ranges and the parties' positions on the unequalized pension value.

The Court of Appeal substituted an award of $20,000 per month for 2012 and $8,500 per month for 2013, with future support calculated by deducting 31.78 per cent of annual pension payouts from the husband's line 150 income.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision by Snowie J. which imposed orders due to the applicant's late expert report.

The original decision imposed conditions for filing the late report, including costs and potential trial adjournment.

The applicant argued procedural unfairness, exceeding jurisdiction, and mischaracterization of costs as interim disbursements.

The court denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and no procedural unfairness or bias.

The court clarified that the costs ordered were for "costs thrown away" due to non-compliance, not interim disbursements, and that Snowie J. acted within her authority under the Family Law Rules.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking permission to travel to Egypt with the parties' nine-year-old son for a two-week vacation.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, citing the child's complex special needs, the Government of Canada's travel advisory for Egypt, and concerns that the father posed a flight risk.

The court applied a cost/benefit analysis to determine the child's best interests.

While acknowledging the benefit of the child meeting his paternal grandparents, the court dismissed the motion, finding that the risks associated with the child's impulsive behaviours, the unfamiliar environment, and the unpredictable security situation in Egypt outweighed the benefits.

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel brought a motion seeking temporary care and custody orders for three children under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The mother consented to placement of all three children with the maternal grandparents.

The father of two of the children sought placement in his own care.

The court determined that both the maternal grandparents and the father qualified as "persons in charge" under the Act.

However, the court found that placement with the father was in the children's best interests, as it would minimize ongoing parental conflict and prioritize placement with a parent over grandparents.

The mother had breached an existing domestic court order by placing the children with the maternal grandparents without consulting the father.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking expanded access to a young child, including overnight and holiday access, following a period of supervised visits under a prior order.

The respondent mother proposed a slower phase‑in schedule and limited holiday access.

The court found evidence of a positive bond between the father and the child and determined that both parties’ proposals were excessive.

The court ordered unsupervised daytime access three times per week as an incremental step, declined immediate overnight access, and set a holiday visit later in December rather than Christmas.

The court also directed that exchanges occur at the respondent’s residence and required the father to provide contact information during visits.

The applicant mother was arrested and removed from her home following an altercation with the respondent father, who claimed she assaulted him.

The mother brought an urgent motion to dispense with a case conference, seeking exclusive possession of her solely-owned home and temporary sole custody of their one-year-old child.

The court found that the circumstances, including the mother's removal from her home and separation from her child based on an uncorroborated complaint, justified dispensing with the case conference.

The court granted the mother exclusive possession of the home, finding the father's constructive trust claim unsubstantiated, and awarded her temporary sole custody of the child with a detailed access schedule for the father.

The applicant brought an interim family law motion seeking child support, spousal support, imputation of income, parenting orders, financial disclosure, and interim disbursement from proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent opposed portions of the motion and sought different parenting arrangements and disclosure of medical records.

The court found the respondent had failed to provide adequate financial disclosure and imputed income based on an agreed historical average.

Interim child support and spousal support were ordered, the primary residence of both children was confirmed with the applicant, and a parenting schedule for the respondent was established.

The court also ordered an interim disbursement from the matrimonial home proceeds to the applicant and directed the parties to participate in family counselling and seek the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The respondent brought a motion to change seeking to vary custody of the parties' daughter from the applicant to himself.

The proceedings were stalled by disputes over financial disclosure, particularly regarding the respondent's income as a self-employed real estate agent and his financial arrangement with his fiancée.

The court addressed multiple disclosure orders, finding technical compliance with procedural rules but noting the respondent's overall dilatoriness.

The court awarded costs to the applicant, stayed the respondent's custody motion pending completion of financial disclosure, and set conditions for any access requests.

The matter was adjourned for further case conference.

The applicant brought a motion for child support based on an imputed income of $100,000 for the respondent in 2010.

The respondent, a self-employed real estate salesman, had reported minimal income to tax authorities but demonstrated substantial lifestyle expenditures and large bank deposits.

The court found that the respondent's business expense deductions were excessive and not adequately supported by documentation.

The court imputed an income of $100,000 to the respondent and ordered child support of $880 per month retroactive to January 1, 2010.

The court also ordered the respondent to contribute to special expenses including after-school care and summer camp.

The respondent brought a motion for specified access to the child, seeking to expand upon the existing access order dated 8 April 2011.

The respondent requested additional access on various occasions including special family events, extended summer access, and permission for family representatives to conduct access exchanges.

The court found the respondent to be a committed father and granted certain requests while denying others.

The court granted three weeks of summer access in 2012, access to a wedding and trip to Florida, and permitted designated family members to conduct access exchanges.

The court denied requests for additional weekday access for lessons, extra holiday access pending further agreement on special occasions, and certain specific date requests.

The court directed that the Children's Lawyer provide input on outstanding issues regarding special occasions and holiday arrangements.