P. MacEachern

The applicant mother and respondent father both sought interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, custody of their two children, and child support.

The mother, who was living in her car and exhibiting concerning behaviour, sought to return to the home she had vacated two years prior.

The court granted temporary sole custody and exclusive possession of the home to the father, finding it in the children's best interests to maintain the status quo.

The mother was granted supervised access and ordered to pay $0 in child support, while a previous order for the father to pay $575 per month in spousal support was continued.

A restraining order was also issued against the mother.

The moving party father brought a motion to change to terminate child support for two adult children.

The responding party mother resided in Serbia and was personally served there, but did not respond.

The court declined to grant the final order, finding that the father failed to prove he made reasonably diligent efforts to ascertain the mother's address, meaning the Hague Service Convention applied.

The father was ordered to serve the mother in accordance with the Convention.

The applicant brought a motion to note the corporate respondent in default and to strike the individual respondent's pleadings for failing to comply with multiple disclosure orders and failing to participate in the proceedings.

The court noted the corporate respondent in default as it had not filed an Answer.

The court struck the individual respondent's pleadings, finding his non-compliance to be willful and egregious, but permitted him to participate in the default hearing solely on the issues of custody and access in the best interests of the child.

The parties disputed disclosure obligations following a case conference.

The applicant sought extensive financial and employment disclosure from the respondent, who in turn sought reciprocal disclosure from the applicant.

The court ordered both parties to produce tax returns, bank statements, credit card statements, and evidence of efforts to secure employment, finding that both parties' incomes were relevant to the claims for child support, section 7 expenses, and spousal support.

The respondent father brought a motion for increased interim access to the parties' two younger children.

The applicant mother opposed the increase but agreed to reunification counselling.

The court found evidence that the mother was negatively influencing the children against the father, supported by an OCL clinical investigation report.

The court ordered increased access, including separate access for the youngest child, and directed the parties to commence reunification counselling with costs shared proportionately to their incomes as a section 7 expense.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce a settlement reached between the parties regarding two motions to change.

Both parties agreed that a final settlement was reached, but disagreed on the specific wording to incorporate the terms into a final order.

The court reviewed the disputed clauses, including the sharing of section 7 expenses, the eligible dependant credit, and life insurance provisions, and ordered specific wording to reflect the settlement.

The applicant was awarded costs of $4,550.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding interim parenting of their three children pending trial.

Following a custody and access assessment by Dr. Horvath, the parties agreed to unsupervised access for the mother but disagreed on the specific schedule and interim custody.

The court ordered a five-week rotation schedule giving the mother one weekend without children to regroup, and maintained the children's primary residence with the father.

The court declined to make an interim order for parallel custody, leaving decision-making issues for the trial judge, and dismissed the mother's request for a report from the Children's Aid Society.

The applicant sought an order for interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, which she owned prior to the marriage.

The respondent, who resided in the home with his two children from a previous relationship, opposed the motion and brought a late cross-motion for spousal support.

The court granted the applicant exclusive possession, finding the home environment to be psychologically abusive and noting the respondent had the financial means to secure alternate accommodation.

The respondent's motion for spousal support was adjourned due to late service, and he was ordered to provide outstanding financial disclosure.

The Family Responsibility Office (FRO) brought a Default Hearing against the respondent for failing to pay child support arrears totaling over $61,000.

The respondent brought a motion to stay the enforcement pending a separate motion to set aside the underlying support order.

The court adjourned the respondent's motion to stay because he failed to properly serve the support recipient.

The court also adjourned the Default Hearing regarding the arrears but ordered the respondent to pay the ongoing child support amount of $461 per month, finding he had not rebutted the presumption of his ability to pay.

The applicant sought to terminate spousal support payable to the respondent, arguing a material change in circumstances due to his unemployment and the respondent's improved financial situation following an inheritance.

The court found a material change had occurred, noting the applicant's substantial and continuous income reduction and the respondent's increased assets.

The court reduced spousal support to $1 per year effective January 1, 2019, but declined to terminate it entirely, finding a continuing compensatory and needs-based entitlement.

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking retroactive child support and section 7 expenses, and to set aside previous consent orders on the basis of duress.

The respondent sought to terminate child support as the child had graduated from college.

The court dismissed the applicant's request for a trial and her claims of duress, finding insufficient evidence that she was coerced into signing the previous Minutes of Settlement.

The court terminated child support effective May 31, 2018, adjusted the monthly support amount from May 2016 onwards based on updated income, and ordered the respondent to pay his proportionate share of specific section 7 expenses for a computer and driver's education, while dismissing the remaining claims.

Following a successful motion for temporary sole custody and a restraining order, the moving party sought costs of $3,168.72 on a full indemnity basis.

The responding party failed to provide responding materials on the motion.

The court found the responding party's failure to respond unreasonable but not amounting to bad faith.

The moving party's offer to settle did not meet the timing requirements of Rule 18(14) and sought relief broader than what was ordered.

The court awarded costs to the moving party fixed at $2,250, representing approximately 70% of full recovery.

The respondent mother brought a motion to vary interim access, which was expedited.

Prior to the hearing, her counsel withdrew, and she appeared self-represented, seeking an adjournment to retain new counsel.

The applicant father sought make-up access for time denied.

The court addressed allegations by the respondent's former counsel that the applicant breached his criminal recognizance by serving documents.

The court found no breach, established detailed interim communication and service protocols to accommodate the bail conditions, and adjourned the access and costs issues to a later date to allow the respondent to retain counsel.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $9,154.48 following a successful urgent motion regarding a parenting schedule and custody assessment.

The respondent opposed the costs and sought her own costs, arguing the applicant acted unreasonably by bringing the matter to court instead of arbitration.

The court found the respondent acted unreasonably by failing to comply with arbitration awards and the final parenting plan.

The court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $7,000, making a small reduction from full indemnity as no formal offer to settle was made and the respondent's conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith.

The applicant father sought to proceed with a scheduled custody and access trial under the Divorce Act, while the respondent mother and the Children's Aid Society sought a stay due to newly commenced child protection proceedings involving allegations of abuse.

The court found that while s. 103 of the CYFSA does not automatically stay Divorce Act proceedings, the court has inherent jurisdiction and authority under Rule 2 of the Family Law Rules to grant a stay.

The court ordered the family proceedings stayed pending the completion of the child protection proceedings to avoid duplicity and allow the CAS to complete its investigation.

The applicant brought an uncontested motion to change a 2012 child support order.

The respondent, residing in Texas, failed to provide income disclosure despite requests and a legal obligation to do so.

The court imputed the respondent's income based on his job title and employer's salary range, converting the amount to Canadian dollars.

The court found a material change in circumstances and ordered an increase in ongoing child support in accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for an interim order enforcing the parenting schedule set out in the parties' separation agreement, after the respondent mother unilaterally withheld the children.

The mother argued the children wished to change the equal residential schedule.

The court held that a parent cannot unilaterally change a parenting schedule in the face of an existing agreement, and ordered that the separation agreement's terms govern on an interim basis.

The court also ordered a section 30 custody and access assessment, counselling for the children, and that neither parent attend the children's school during the other's parenting time.

The applicant brought a motion for further disclosure regarding the respondent's residence, income, vehicle ownership, and compliance with court orders.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking interim access and adjustments to child support.

The court partially granted the applicant's motion, ordering the respondent to produce specific documents including his 2014 CRA Notice of Assessment, letters regarding vehicle ownership, proof of insurance, and evidence of completing the Back on Track program.

The court dismissed the respondent's cross-motion for interim relief, noting the impending trial date.

Both parties were ordered to provide updated financial statements and complete income tax returns.

Following a successful motion regarding interim parenting, disclosure, and an alcohol assessment, the applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis.

The applicant had served an offer to settle that was as favourable or less favourable than the final order.

The court found the applicant presumptively entitled to full recovery costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs fixed at $7,138.34.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim unsupervised access to the parties' 5-year-old child.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking to maintain supervised access, which had been in place following an investigation by the Children's Aid Society and police into her allegations of inappropriate behaviour by the applicant.

The investigation concluded with no safety concerns verified.

The court found that the relevant status quo was the liberal access that existed prior to the unverified allegations, not the restrictive supervised access regime that followed.

The court ordered interim unsupervised access for the applicant, gradually increasing to include overnights, and requested the involvement of the Children's Lawyer.