Pierre Sicco

The father was entirely successful at a trial regarding a motion to change, where the court found the mother engaged in a lengthy campaign of parental alienation.

The father sought costs of $213,436.28 on a full indemnity basis, relying on an offer to settle.

The mother argued for a reduced quantum of $97,465.00, citing her financial circumstances.

The court declined to award full indemnity costs but awarded substantial indemnity costs of $175,000.00, noting the mother's inappropriate conduct as a litigant, including violating a previous consent order and surreptitiously recording access exchanges.

The applicant husband sought to set aside a separation agreement, arguing lack of financial disclosure and unconscionability.

The court found the husband had sufficient knowledge of the wife's significant assets and liabilities, and that the agreement was not unconscionable.

The court upheld the separation agreement but varied child support, imputing a higher income to the husband based on his multiple sources of undisclosed income.

The wife's claim for reimbursement of credit card debt was dismissed as the agreement stipulated each party was responsible for their own debts.

The father brought a motion to change a final parenting order, seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the 11-year-old child.

The court found overwhelming evidence that the mother had engaged in a consistent and long-term pattern of parental alienation and emotional abuse, severely damaging the child's relationship with the father.

Concluding that maintaining the status quo would be harmful, the court granted the motion, ordering the child to live with the father, granting him sole decision-making authority, and imposing a 90-day no-contact order between the child and the mother while the child undergoes reunification therapy.

The Applicant sought full indemnity costs following successful motions related to the enforcement of a Consent and Minutes of Settlement for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The Respondent opposed, arguing her actions were not in bad faith and she lacked the financial means to pay.

The court found the Respondent's behaviour unreasonable, particularly her attempts to renegotiate or set aside the settlement and her persistence in positions already dismissed.

While not constituting bad faith, her conduct warranted a costs award.

The Applicant was awarded costs on a full indemnity basis, reduced by 10 hours due to issues with his counsel's drafting of the consent order.

The total award of $34,394 was ordered to be paid from the Respondent's share of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant sought a vesting order for the matrimonial home to ensure its sale, following the respondent's initial non-compliance with an order to sign a listing agreement.

The court dismissed the vesting order motion, finding that the applicant did not meet the criteria under s. 100 of the Courts of Justice Act and the Norris test, as there was no underlying claim to ownership or payment order.

Despite the dismissal of the vesting order, the respondent was ordered to pay $2,000 in costs to the applicant due to her unreasonable conduct in initially refusing to sign the listing agreement.

The respondent brought a motion for partition and sale of the jointly owned common residence.

The applicant opposed, arguing sole equitable ownership due to extensive renovations and raising procedural objections regarding the motion's jurisdiction under the Family Law Rules.

The court affirmed its jurisdiction to hear motions for partition and sale under Rule 14 of the Family Law Rules, even for final orders, and dismissed the applicant's procedural arguments.

The motion for partition and sale was granted, as the applicant failed to demonstrate the high threshold of malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct required to resist the sale.

The net proceeds from the sale were ordered to be paid into court or trust.

The applicant mother brought a motion to suspend the respondent father's access to their child and to set aside a parenting coordinator's arbitration award.

The mother had unilaterally withheld access following an alleged incident where the father pushed the child, though police and child protection services closed their investigations without action.

The parenting coordinator ordered the resumption of access and make-up time.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding no reliable evidence to justify suspending access and no reasonable apprehension of bias or procedural unfairness in the arbitration award.

The father's cross-motion to enforce the award and resume access was granted.

The applicants, the son and daughter-in-law of the incapable respondent, brought an application for the passing of accounts and the removal of the respondent's daughter as joint attorney for property.

The court found that the daughter had improperly taken funds from her mother's accounts for her personal use and had failed to provide a proper accounting as ordered.

The court ordered the daughter to repay $21,133.12 to her mother's estate, removed her as joint attorney for property, and refused to pass her accounts.