Peter Dymoke Eberlie

The court issued supplementary reasons to clarify the precise start date and length of cohabitation for spousal support calculations.

The applicant contended cohabitation began in January 1992, while the respondent asserted May 1995.

The court determined that cohabitation commenced in October or November 1994, resulting in a cohabitation period of 21.5 years.

This clarification was deemed necessary because the length of cohabitation impacts the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) "without children" formula, which became relevant after child support obligations ended.

This family law trial addressed property division and spousal support for unmarried spouses after a 20+ year cohabitation.

The court found a "joint family venture" existed from late 1994, recognizing the applicant's significant non-financial contributions and career sacrifices.

The family home and joint investments were ordered to be equally divided, with the respondent paying the applicant an equalization payment.

The court imputed income to the applicant for spousal support purposes due to inconsistent job search efforts post-separation, but also acknowledged her past caregiving responsibilities.

Indefinite spousal support was awarded to the applicant at the midpoint of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range, and child support termination dates were confirmed.

This is a costs decision following the applicant's successful motion for compliance with undertakings and financial disclosure.

The applicant sought $32,000 in costs, while the respondent argued for no costs or partial indemnity.

The court found the applicant largely successful and presumptively entitled to costs.

While acknowledging the respondent's substantial voluntary disclosure, the court determined that his position on certain disclosure was incorrect, leading to the motion.

The court applied the Family Law Rules, which allow for flexibility in costs, and considered the absence of offers to settle from either party.

Ultimately, the court fixed the applicant's costs at $22,425, representing approximately 70% of her fees plus allowed disbursements, and ordered the respondent to pay this amount within 30 days, enforceable as a support order.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion where the applicant sought an interim order for six trips with the child, but was only permitted one.

The court found the respondent to be more successful on the underlying motion.

The applicant sought $1,000 in costs, while the self-represented respondent claimed $4,500.

Although the respondent was deemed more successful and a reasonable costs award would be $1,000-$1,250, her entitlement was reduced to $250 due to her unreasonable conduct, specifically non-compliance with court orders regarding the length, form, and content of her filed materials.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $250 in costs.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking permission for six international and domestic trips with the child during the school year.

The respondent mother opposed, emphasizing the high-conflict history, the importance of maintaining the established parallel parenting schedule to minimize parental conflict, and concerns about the child missing school.

The court dismissed five of the six proposed trips, finding them too disruptive and contrary to the child's best interests, particularly regarding school attendance and schedule stability.

However, one trip to Disney World was permitted, with specific arrangements for pick-up, return, and make-up parenting time, as it was deemed child-focused and minimally disruptive.

The court also addressed the respondent's non-compliance with procedural orders regarding affidavit formatting, declining to strike her affidavit but noting potential cost implications.

This costs endorsement followed the dismissal of the respondent's motion for interim relief, which sought to revoke the applicant's parental rights and award sole custody.

The applicant, having successfully defended the motion, sought $10,000 in costs.

The court found the respondent's claims irresponsible and her ex parte proceeding a failure of full disclosure.

However, the applicant's own unreasonable conduct in attempting to cross the US border with the child without proper documentation led to a reduction in the costs awarded.

The court fixed costs at $3,500, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by the respondent, and declined to characterize them as child support.

The applicant mother sought a temporary order to vary access provisions to allow her to relocate with the child to Kelowna, B.C., citing dire financial straits and employment opportunities.

The respondent father had also brought motions for joint custody, a shared parenting schedule, and a child assessment.

The court granted the mother's request for temporary relocation, finding it to be in the child's best interests, particularly given the father's limited recent involvement and the impending trial.

The father's motions for joint custody and a shared parenting schedule were adjourned, and his other requests were dismissed.

Motion to change a child support order for Ashley Taylor Boivin-Smith.

The applicant mother sought to increase child support from the respondent stepfather based on his increased income.

The respondent opposed the motion and argued that his support obligations should be terminated or significantly reduced, contending that he had overpaid support and that the biological father should bear primary responsibility.

The court found that the respondent remained a parent for support purposes and that child support should continue.

However, the court rejected the applicant's request for full Guidelines support and instead applied a "top-up" approach under section 5 of the Ontario Child Support Guidelines, requiring the respondent to pay only the amount necessary to supplement the biological father's presumptive Guidelines obligation.

The court also declined to award retroactive support for years prior to 2007.

In a family law motion, the respondent father sought permission to take the parties’ six‑year‑old child to Cuba for a family wedding.

The mother opposed the trip, alleging concerning behaviour by the father and raising questions about his mental stability and parenting judgment.

The court noted that the serious allegations could not be resolved on conflicting affidavit evidence without cross‑examination.

Applying the best interests of the child and taking a cautious approach in light of unresolved allegations, the court concluded that the child should not travel internationally at that time.

The motion was dismissed, without prejudice to the father seeking reimbursement of the child’s airfare.

The applicant sought to adjourn a family law custody and access trial until after the resolution of related criminal charges, arguing that proceeding with the family trial first would prejudice his criminal defence by requiring disclosure of facts relevant to the allegations.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, asserting that delay would prejudice both her and the parties’ child.

The court considered statutory protections under the Ontario Evidence Act, the Canada Evidence Act, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protect witnesses from self‑incrimination in subsequent proceedings.

Applying the discretionary principles governing adjournments and emphasizing the best interests of the child, the court held that an indefinite delay pending completion of criminal proceedings would not serve the child’s interests.

The request to adjourn the trial pending the criminal trial was therefore dismissed, though other potential adjournment issues were left to the trial management judge.

On competing interim family law motions following separation, the respondent sought implementation of parenting schedule recommendations from a custody and access assessment, while the applicant sought an interim preservation order restraining dealings with certain corporate interests and RRSP assets.

The court considered whether an assessor’s report prepared for trial could be relied upon on an interim motion.

The court held that while caution is required, the contents of an assessment may be considered where it provides probative evidence and where the requested interim order does not substantially alter the status quo.

The parenting schedule was modestly reorganized to accommodate the father’s employment travel and the child’s educational needs, while balancing the child’s expressed preferences and parental care considerations.

An interim preservation order was also granted restraining dealings with specified corporate interests and RRSPs pending valuation to protect potential equalization claims.

On competing interim family law motions following separation, the respondent sought implementation of parenting schedule recommendations from a custody and access assessment, while the applicant sought an interim preservation order restraining dealings with certain corporate interests and RRSP assets.

The court considered whether an assessor’s report prepared for trial could be relied upon on an interim motion.

The court held that while caution is required, the contents of an assessment may be considered where it provides probative evidence and where the requested interim order does not substantially alter the status quo.

The parenting schedule was modestly reorganized to accommodate the father’s employment travel and the child’s educational needs, while balancing the child’s expressed preferences and parental care considerations.

An interim preservation order was also granted restraining dealings with specified corporate interests and RRSPs pending valuation to protect potential equalization claims.