Philip Viater

The paternal grandparents sought court-ordered contact with their two grandchildren, E. (13.5) and L. (10), and reconciliation counseling.

The parents opposed the extent of contact and the counseling.

The court found a positive pre-existing relationship with E. was imperiled by both parties' actions, but the parents did not act arbitrarily in limiting contact with E. For L., no positive pre-existing relationship existed, but the parents' actions in limiting contact were deemed arbitrary.

The court ordered monthly contact for both children for a minimum of three hours, with additional contact options, and dismissed the request for reconciliation counseling, emphasizing that such orders are made sparingly and parental autonomy is key.

The mother sought $7,000 in partial recovery costs after successfully resisting the father's motion for reunification therapy and achieving substantial success on her request for life insurance.

The father argued no costs should be awarded or they should be limited to $1,500, citing divided success and the mother's unreasonable conduct.

The court found the mother was the successful party but discounted her costs due to findings of poor behaviour by both parties.

The father was ordered to pay $5,000 in costs to the mother.

The respondent father brought a motion to compel his 15-year-old child to attend reunification therapy and sought a determination on the quantum of life insurance to secure child support.

The applicant mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) opposed the reunification therapy, citing the child's strong and consistent refusal and the potential for harm.

The court found both parents contributed to the family dysfunction, acknowledging the mother's inappropriate involvement of the child in parental conflict and the father's history of family violence.

The court dismissed the motion for reunification therapy, prioritizing the child's autonomy and well-being.

Regarding life insurance, the court ordered the father to maintain a policy of $165,950.00, securing child support and a portion of future post-secondary education costs, with annual reductions.

This judgment addresses the remaining issues in a family law dispute between parents concerning parenting time, child support arrears, and travel conditions for their young child.

The court primarily focused on the father's history of drug and alcohol addiction, lack of insight, and pattern of emotional abuse and harassment towards the mother.

The mother sought continued supervised parenting time and mandatory drug testing, while the father sought unsupervised access.

The court found the father's evidence lacked credibility and determined that supervised parenting time was necessary for the child's safety and well-being, imposing strict conditions for any future transition to unsupervised access, including a regimen of comprehensive drug and alcohol testing and participation in counselling and anger management programs.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the applicant father's parenting time be supervised, alleging he failed to comply with random drug testing requirements under their Minutes of Settlement.

The father had only taken two tests, one of which showed trace amounts of cocaine, which his addiction physician argued could be from environmental exposure.

The court declined to order supervised parenting time, finding no evidence of actual problems with the father's care of the child, but incorporated the Minutes into a temporary order with stricter weekly drug testing requirements.

The respondent brought a motion to change to terminate his spousal support obligations following his retirement.

The applicant opposed the termination, arguing support was intended for their joint lives, and sought a lump sum to cover her tax liabilities from failing to declare past support as income.

The court found the respondent's retirement constituted a material change in circumstances as explicitly contemplated in the original consent order.

Concluding that the applicant had sufficient time to achieve self-sufficiency and that her tax liabilities were her own responsibility, the court terminated spousal support retroactively to December 31, 2016, and dismissed the applicant's claims.

Following a 22-day parenting trial and a withdrawn motion for contempt, the successful respondent father sought full recovery of his costs totaling $668,930.

The court found the applicant mother's litigation conduct to be unreasonable, including her misuse of a contempt motion and failure to accept a reasonable offer to settle.

The court awarded the respondent costs of $611,637, representing full recovery for the period after his offer to settle and for defending the contempt motion, and a partial recovery for the pre-offer period.

The court declined to order the applicant's counsel to pay the costs personally but granted the applicant leave to bring a motion against her counsel under Rule 24(9).

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final consent order to terminate the respondent father's parenting time and relocate the child to Montreal.

The father sought sole decision-making and an equal parenting schedule.

The court found the mother had engaged in a pattern of high-conflict litigation, terminated the child's therapy, and failed to act in the child's best interests.

Relying on the 13-year-old child's strong views and preferences, the court granted the father sole decision-making responsibility and took the unusual step of leaving parenting time with the mother entirely to the child's discretion.

The mother's motion was dismissed, and she was ordered to pay child support.

Following a family law trial where the applicant was largely successful in obtaining an equalization payment and spousal support, the applicant sought costs of $589,650.95 on a full indemnity basis.

The respondent argued the costs were excessive, particularly regarding the use of two counsel at trial.

The court found that while the factual complexity justified two counsel to a limited extent, the lack of explanation for specific tasks warranted a reduction for duplication.

The court fixed costs at $300,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The parties separated after a 14-year marriage.

The applicant sought an equalization of net family property, spousal support, and retroactive child support.

The respondent claimed a constructive trust interest in several of the applicant's properties and businesses, and brought a consolidated civil action for unjust enrichment and damages related to a business eviction.

The court dismissed the respondent's trust and civil claims, finding no unjust enrichment.

The court ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $1,803,824.61, largely preserving the applicant's inheritance exclusions.

The court also awarded the applicant $750,000.00 in lump-sum spousal support due to her health condition and the need for a clean break, but dismissed claims for retroactive child support.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking a finding that the applicant mother was in non-compliance with a temporary access order, along with requests for make-up time and various behavioural orders.

The children had been refusing to attend parenting time with the father, which the father alleged was due to parental alienation by the mother, while the mother alleged it was due to the father's past behaviour.

The court reviewed the efforts of multiple professionals and the mother's disciplinary actions, concluding that on an interim record, it could not find the mother in non-compliance.

The court dismissed the non-compliance motion but varied the temporary order to require psychological assessments of the children and participation in an intensive therapy program to facilitate access.

This endorsement arises from an urgent case conference concerning parenting issues during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Following the parties' inability to agree on a temporary parenting plan, the court issued procedural orders for the respondent father to bring a motion to determine the children's parenting arrangements and time with him during the pandemic, setting strict timelines and page limits for materials and submissions.

The applicant mother sought to suspend the respondent father's in-person access to their child due to COVID-19 concerns, requesting replacement with Skype contact.

The respondent father sought to reinstate his court-ordered access.

The court found that the mother improperly refused access and failed to demonstrate a strong prima facie case, clear hardship, or urgency for varying the existing order.

The court emphasized the duty to obey court orders and the maximum contact principle, even during a pandemic.

The father's motion to reinstate access was granted with conditions, and the mother's request to suspend access was denied.

This endorsement followed an urgent case conference, initiated by the respondent father, concerning parenting issues for the parties' two young children amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court provided recommendations and directed counsel to ascertain the potential for agreement on the conferenced issues, with further directions to follow based on the parties' feedback.

The order emphasized its immediate enforceability due to the emergency circumstances.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion for child and spousal support brought by Mona Ayesh against Abdelsalam Zeidan.

Ms. Ayesh was successful in obtaining support orders.

She sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while Mr. Zeidan claimed his own costs, arguing his offer to settle was more favourable.

The court found Ms. Ayesh was presumptively entitled to costs due to her success and Mr. Zeidan's unreasonable conduct, specifically his failure to provide full financial disclosure, which amounted to bad faith under the Family Law Rules.

Consequently, the court awarded Ms. Ayesh full recovery costs of $14,133.48, enforceable as child support.

The father moved to vary child support orders and for the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The mother brought a cross-motion to strike the father's pleadings due to his failure to pay outstanding costs orders and significant child support arrears.

The court found the father lacked credibility regarding his financial affairs, citing inconsistent income declarations and social media postings.

Applying the three-pronged test for striking pleadings, the court found a triggering event in the father's wilful non-compliance.

As a remedy, the court granted the OCL appointment and ordered the father to pay all outstanding costs and arrears by a specific date.

If he complied, he could renew his motion to vary support; otherwise, his pleadings on non-parenting issues would be struck, allowing the mother to proceed with an uncontested trial on those matters.

The applicant husband sought temporary spousal support 13 years after the parties' final separation.

The respondent wife brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the spousal support claim.

The court granted the wife's summary judgment motion, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the husband's entitlement to spousal support.

The decision highlighted the extreme delay in bringing the claim, the lack of financial interdependence post-separation, the wife's role as primary caregiver and sole financial support for the children, and the husband's failure to provide a compelling explanation for the delay or objective evidence of financial contributions or a "family discount" on a matrimonial home.

The applicant father brought a motion to change his child support obligations retroactive to 2010, arguing his income as a self-employed contractor was lower than the amount imputed in the parties' separation agreement.

The respondent mother alleged the father's business expenses and subcontractor invoices were fraudulent.

The court found no fraud but preferred the evidence of the jointly retained income valuator over the father's testimony regarding his business expenses.

The court determined the father's income for support purposes, calculated child support arrears and overpayments, and ordered the father to pay his proportionate share of section 7 expenses and RESP contributions.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to extend the time to bring a claim for equalization of net family property.

The parties separated in February 2005 after nearly 16 years of marriage.

In October 2007, the appellant signed a separation agreement waiving any right to equalization.

He sought equalization in January 2016, over 11 years after separation and 9 years after the separation agreement.

The parties had previously executed a marriage contract in 1989 that barred equalization claims.

The motion judge found no apparent grounds for relief and refused the extension based on the lengthy delay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding the motion judge properly applied the statutory test under the Family Law Act and that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The father brought a motion to change a final order, seeking joint custody, access in the U.S., a name change for the child, and termination of spousal support.

The mother sought sole custody, restricted access, and increased child and spousal support.

The court dismissed the father's requests for joint custody, U.S. access, and a name change, finding he lacked credibility and the mother had encouraged access.

The court permitted the father to register the child's birth in the U.S. to preserve citizenship rights.

Child and spousal support were increased retroactively based on the father's higher income, but spousal support was ordered to terminate in 2018.