Peter James Robertson

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, and supervised parenting time for the parties' five-year-old child, as well as child support.

The respondent father, who struggled with substance misuse and mental health issues, did not attend the trial.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making and primary residence, and ordered that the father's parenting time be supervised.

The court declined to impute income to the father for prospective child support due to his addiction and unstable work history, but ordered him to pay $3,114 in retroactive child support arrears.

The trustee applied for an order approving the debtor's Division 1 proposal.

The debtor sought an adjournment to object to the trustee's remuneration and to expunge a creditor's proof of claim.

The court denied the adjournment, finding that the debtor had ample opportunity to challenge the claim earlier and that the bankruptcy proceedings had already been excessively delayed.

The court approved the proposal, finding its terms reasonable and calculated to benefit the general body of creditors.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for interim child support, occupation rent, and the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The court found the applicant was entitled to needs-based interim spousal support due to the significant income disparity and depletion of his savings.

The applicant was ordered to pay interim child support and a proportionate share of section 7 expenses based on his farming income.

The respondent's motions for occupation rent and the sale of the matrimonial home were dismissed, as there was insufficient evidence for occupation rent and it was unreasonable to force the sale of the home before equalization was determined.

The wife's application for family law relief involved equalization of property, including a fishing boat, tax debts, and an inheritance exclusion, as well as post-separation adjustments for occupation rent.

The court dismissed the wife's claims regarding the fishing boat and inheritance exclusion due to insufficient tracing evidence.

It accepted the husband's proportional tax debt deductions.

Prejudgment interest was awarded to the wife on the equalization payment from the date of separation.

The claim for occupation rent was denied, considering the parties' financial arrangements, the wife's delay in claiming, and her benefit from property value increase.

A divorce order was granted on consent.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued supplemental reasons varying a child support order.

The court accepted the respondent's 2015 income at $90,735.00, setting child support at $1,294.00 per month for two children, effective January 1, 2015.

Accumulated arrears of $16,648.00 were ordered to be paid at $175.00 per month.

The respondent was also ordered to provide annual income tax returns and notices of assessment.

A charge was placed on the respondent's property as security for child support.

The respondent's initial application to reduce support, eliminate arrears, and terminate support for one child was largely withdrawn or denied, except for the variation of child support based on updated income.

The applicant was awarded $2,000.00 in costs due to the respondent's protracted conduct and inadequate financial disclosure.

Following a family law trial addressing custody, residence, access, and income determination, the court considered liability and quantum of costs.

The father had been largely successful at trial on the primary parenting issues and his settlement offers exceeded the final outcome.

The court reviewed the principles governing costs under the Family Law Rules, including proportionality, settlement offers, conduct of the parties, and the financial means of the parties.

Although the mother argued that a prior “costs in the cause” endorsement prevented recovery of earlier motion costs and raised her limited financial means, the court rejected those arguments.

Exercising discretion, the court awarded the father global costs of $26,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, HST, and the earlier motion.

The appellant property owner appealed a summary judgment declaring that the respondent cottagers had acquired a prescriptive easement over a laneway owned by the appellant.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by failing to apply the principle of illegality regarding a municipal by-law and by finding sufficient evidence of winter use.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no connection between the alleged by-law breach and the easement issue, and no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's treatment of the evidence of continuous year-round use.