Peter M. Callahan

Following a trial in a matrimonial proceeding, the court determined issues of equalization, spousal support, child support, and access.

The court found that shares held by the respondent were beneficially owned by his father and excluded them from equalization.

The court declined to grant the applicant a right of first refusal to purchase the matrimonial home, ordering its sale absent agreement.

For support purposes, the respondent's employee retention bonus was included in his 2014 income.

Spousal support was ordered at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, as the court found the applicant's new relationship was not yet spouse-like.

Access was ordered according to the respondent's requested schedule, but made subject to the 14-year-old child's wishes.

The applicant father sought unsupervised access and joint custody of his young son.

The respondent mother opposed, citing fears for her safety and alleging the father had anger and alcohol issues, and requested continued supervised access.

After a lengthy trial reviewing the parties' tumultuous relationship and the father's successful supervised visits, the court found no evidence the father posed a danger to the child.

The court ordered joint custody with divided final decision-making authority, a progressive schedule for unsupervised access, and mandated the use of Our Family Wizard for communication.

This is a costs decision following a seven-day family law trial concerning parenting arrangements and child support for a child.

The applicant was successful at trial, obtaining sole custody and child support arrears and ongoing support significantly more favorable than the respondent's offer to settle.

The applicant seeks $60,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The respondent argues costs should not exceed $10,000 and seeks to attribute costs to the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court awards the applicant $59,500 in costs, finding the applicant acted reasonably, made a comprehensive offer to settle that was rejected, and achieved a result more favorable than the offer.

The respondent's conduct, while not unreasonable, resulted in an unnecessary trial that could have been avoided by accepting the settlement offer.

Following a 27‑year marriage, the parties litigated issues relating to equalization of property, division of assets, and spousal support under the Divorce Act and Family Law Act.

The court addressed disputes regarding the valuation of shares in a jointly owned business, claimed exclusions for gifts between spouses, alleged undisclosed assets, and income available for support.

The court rejected the claim for exclusion of jewellery gifts and declined to account for notional disposition costs of corporate shares due to insufficient evidence.

Although the applicant had contributed financially in the early years of the marriage while the respondent built the business, the court held she had already been compensated through shared lifestyle benefits and the multimillion‑dollar buyout of her corporate shares, precluding compensatory support.

However, recognizing the long marriage and needs‑based considerations, the court ordered spousal support at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce security granted by the defendant over her investment account for a loan advanced to a corporation operated by her brother.

The defendant argued she should not be liable because the plaintiff failed to ensure she received independent legal advice before pledging the security.

The court found the documentary record established the security was knowingly provided for the loan and that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial under Rule 20.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Distinguishing authorities involving vulnerable guarantors and unconscionable transactions, the court held no duty arose to ensure independent legal advice in the circumstances.

Summary judgment was granted and the investment account ordered liquidated to satisfy the debt.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike a statement of claim alleging malicious prosecution and conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution following a fraud charge that was later stayed.

The court held that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The conspiracy allegations lacked the necessary particulars regarding the alleged agreement and overt acts of the conspirators.

The malicious prosecution claim also failed because the pleadings did not adequately allege absence of reasonable and probable cause or malice, as required by the Supreme Court of Canada in Miazga v. Kvello Estate.

The statement of claim against the Attorney General was therefore struck.

A law firm brought motions in two related civil actions seeking to be removed as solicitors of record for their former clients and requesting costs personally against another lawyer under rule 57.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The moving firm alleged that the other lawyer had undertaken to file notices of change of lawyer and failed to do so, thereby forcing the motions.

The court found that no undertaking had been given regarding one of the actions and that the undertaking in the other action was conditional upon file review and further information.

The court held that the evidence did not establish that the lawyer caused costs to be incurred without reasonable cause or through undue delay or negligence.

Applying the caution required before ordering costs personally against counsel, the court declined to impose personal liability.

Shareholders and a former director brought a motion seeking to strike the defendants’ statement of defence for alleged non-disclosure, or alternatively compelling additional corporate and financial production.

The underlying action alleged that the defendants, as directors, diverted a corporate opportunity to another entity and caused the insolvency of the corporation.

The court reviewed the history of disclosure and determined that extensive corporate, technical, contractual, and financial records had already been produced.

The requested additional production was found to be overly broad and unsupported by evidence establishing relevance to issues in dispute.

The motion for additional disclosure was dismissed and the matter was directed to proceed to an expedited trial.

The parties each brought motions to change prior final family law orders relating to parenting time and child support.

One party sought expanded access and adjustments to the dispute resolution process concerning parenting arrangements, while the other sought variation of child support and extensive financial disclosure alleging undisclosed corporate interests and higher income.

At a settlement conference, the court addressed disclosure obligations, examination scheduling, and mediation steps, and established a detailed procedural timetable for production, questioning, and the hearing of both motions.

The court also directed the parties to pursue mediation and potential counseling with a child psychiatrist and made interim directions regarding the children's extracurricular activities.

Costs of the conference were reserved.

The parties each brought motions to change prior final family law orders relating to parenting time and child support.

One party sought expanded access and adjustments to the dispute resolution process concerning parenting arrangements, while the other sought variation of child support and extensive financial disclosure alleging undisclosed corporate interests and higher income.

At a settlement conference, the court addressed disclosure obligations, examination scheduling, and mediation steps, and established a detailed procedural timetable for production, questioning, and the hearing of both motions.

The court also directed the parties to pursue mediation and potential counseling with a child psychiatrist and made interim directions regarding the children's extracurricular activities.

Costs of the conference were reserved.

Following a motion concerning whether an accepted settlement offer constituted an enforceable settlement in estate litigation, the court had previously determined that a binding settlement existed.

The estate trustee successfully resisted the beneficiary’s motion.

On the subsequent costs endorsement, the court considered the factors under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the trustee sought substantial indemnity costs, the court held that the circumstances did not justify such an award, particularly in the absence of a Rule 49 offer.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the estate trustee, subject to reductions reflecting excessive time entries and the trustee’s late disclosure of certain estate assets.

In an estate dispute between brothers arising from a contested passing of accounts, the estate trustee moved under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to enforce a settlement based on the beneficiary’s offer to settle.

The court considered whether the offer remained open for acceptance and whether enforcement would create an injustice.

It held that the hearing of the application had not commenced on earlier procedural attendances and that the offer, which had not been withdrawn in writing, remained open when accepted.

Applying contract principles and appellate guidance on enforcing settlements, the court found the offer clear and unequivocal and rejected arguments that a mistaken assumption about its expiry or incomplete disclosure justified non‑enforcement.

The court concluded there was a binding settlement and granted judgment enforcing the accepted offer.

The applicant mother, who had sole custody of the child, sought to relocate to New Jersey to live with her new husband.

The respondent father opposed the move and sought custody.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework and found that the move was in the child's best interests, noting the mother's role as primary caregiver and the bona fide nature of the relocation.

The court permitted the move, varied the access schedule to provide the father with less frequent but longer visits, and ordered the father to pay child support arrears and ongoing support without imputing income to the mother for her temporary leave of absence.

Following an uncontested family law trial after the applicant’s pleadings were struck for failure to comply with disclosure orders, the court determined issues of divorce, child support arrears, spousal support arrears, ongoing spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the applicant had failed to provide reliable financial disclosure and had attempted to misrepresent his income to avoid support obligations.

Income was imputed to the applicant at $100,000 annually.

The respondent, suffering from serious ongoing medical issues that limited her ability to work, was awarded retroactive child and spousal support, ongoing spousal support, equalization of property, and insurance-related payments.

The defendants brought a motion seeking further particulars of allegations in a statement of claim relating to alleged improper transactions between related corporate entities.

The plaintiff had already responded that the allegations concerned all relevant transactions, which the defendants argued improperly expanded disclosure beyond the applicable limitation period.

The court held that the adequacy of particulars was the only issue on the motion and that limitation issues relating to document production should be addressed in a separate motion if necessary.

The responses provided were found to be adequate and the defendants were not entitled to further particulars.

The court also criticized the defendants’ procedural conduct, including filing a confusing and unscheduled Rule 21 motion and mishandling scheduling and correspondence, which unnecessarily complicated the proceeding.