Rachel Radley

Following a previous decision determining the date of cohabitation, the court finalized the issues of spousal support and property distribution.

The court found the mother was entitled to needs-based spousal support for a limited period, terminating on December 31, 2021, and awarded her $23,009 net of tax.

The net sale proceeds of the parties' property were distributed according to the parties' agreement, with the mother receiving $64,584.40 and the father receiving $289,775.23.

The parties, who were unmarried and had one child, disputed the date of cohabitation, the division of proceeds from a jointly owned home, spousal support, and the return of an engagement ring.

The court found the parties began cohabiting on May 10, 2017, when the applicant was added to the respondent's auto insurance.

The court held that the presumption of resulting trust applied to the jointly owned home, dividing the proceeds 73% to the respondent and 27% to the applicant based on their respective contributions.

The applicant was awarded needs-based spousal support, and was permitted to keep the engagement ring or return it for a $14,000 credit.

The mother, as the successful party on a long motion regarding parenting issues, sought full recovery costs of $45,308.42.

The father argued no costs should be awarded due to his limited financial resources, or alternatively, costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the father's conduct unreasonable and that he should have accepted the mother's offer to settle.

The court awarded the mother fixed costs of $30,000, payable in installments, noting that impecuniosity does not excuse unreasonable litigation conduct.

The applicant mother sought orders to implement parenting schedules and related relief, including police enforcement, due to the respondent father's alleged withholding of their child, EM, and non-compliance with agreements.

The father brought an irregular cross-motion for temporary custody.

The court found the father engaged in parental alienation tactics, consistently disregarded agreements, and failed to support the child's relationship with the mother.

The child, diagnosed with ADHD and a learning disability, exhibited poor school attendance and academic performance while in the father's care.

The court dismissed the father's cross-motion and granted the mother temporary sole custody, sole decision-making authority for EM's healthcare and schooling, and ordered reunification therapy, with police enforcement of the custody order.

This is a costs decision following a contentious family law motion.

Both parties claimed success and sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court found that neither party was particularly successful, as many issues were not genuinely in dispute or could have been resolved by agreement.

The court considered the parties' conduct under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, noting the respondent's failure to respond to applicant's correspondence and unnecessary barriers to disclosure, which increased costs.

Despite the respondent's subsequent partial concession, the court found her conduct more concerning.

The respondent's claim of inability to pay costs was rejected due to lack of evidence.

The applicant's request for costs related to an abandoned spousal support claim was deferred to the trial judge.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $1,000 in costs.

The applicant sought an urgent hearing and leave to bring a motion regarding suspended access, despite a prior order requiring leave from the case management judge.

The respondent also brought a cross-motion without leave.

The case management judge, Lemay J., granted leave for both motions to proceed, finding a prima facie urgency due to a breached court order and the respondent's explanation.

However, Lemay J. transferred the substantive hearing to Fowler Byrne J. and issued strict procedural directions for future communications and motions, emphasizing the role of the case management judge and warning against contempt for non-compliance.

The Applicant Father sought an urgent motion to resume court-ordered access to his daughter, which the Respondent Mother had unilaterally suspended due to COVID-19 concerns, the child's health, and the Father's alleged alcohol abuse and association with a "drug house." The court found the Mother's unilateral suspension wrongful.

While acknowledging the Mother's concerns, particularly regarding the Father's social distancing and attendance at a questionable residence, the court ordered the immediate recommencement of access with modifications.

These modifications included shortened access time, specific exchange protocols, continued breath sample reporting by the Father, strict adherence to COVID-19 protocols, and a prohibition on attending the "Cliftonvale Residence" without sworn evidence of legitimate work.

The court, acting as case management judge, addressed several outstanding issues in a family law proceeding, including the severing of divorce, production of medical records for the child, a counselling session for the applicant and child, and a sealing order.

The court ordered the divorce severed, mandated production of the child's medical records (rejecting the respondent's obstacles), and ordered a specific counselling session protocol.

A sealing order for the child's medical records was granted, and the decision was anonymized.

The court declined to order production of a specific surveillance video and declined to make an order confirming the withdrawal of spousal support.

Costs were reserved for further submissions due to concerns about both parties' litigation conduct.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to address parenting time issues and enforce an alleged parenting schedule, claiming the respondent father was unreasonably withholding access.

The court found the evidence met the urgency requirements set out in the Chief Justice's Notice to the Profession regarding the COVID-19 pandemic.

The motion was granted, and directions were issued to schedule an urgent case conference restricted to dealing with the father's access.

The applicant father sought an urgent Case Conference to address access to the parties' two children and to appoint an expert for a parenting assessment under s. 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, alleging the respondent mother was obstructing access.

The court found the matter met the urgency requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic and granted the motion, providing specific directions for the conference, including timelines for brief submissions and details regarding the proposed assessor.

The court also offered guidance on parenting during the pandemic, emphasizing the presumption of continuing existing arrangements and the need for realistic solutions.

The applicant sought costs following a family law trial where the respondent's pleadings had been struck.

The court awarded the applicant full recovery costs for the trial, totaling $108,781.39, citing her reasonable offers to settle and the respondent's unreasonable conduct throughout the litigation.

The court also awarded the applicant $5,500 in partial recovery costs for an adjourned Divisional Court motion.

The trial costs were ordered to be enforceable as support due to child support being a principal issue in the proceedings.

The Applicant sought sole custody, therapeutic supervised access, and child support.

The Respondent's pleadings were struck due to non-compliance with court orders and misconduct during access visits.

The court granted the Applicant sole custody, ordered no access for the Respondent (subject to a future therapeutic plan at his expense), fixed ongoing and retroactive child support, and dismissed the Applicant's request to declare the Respondent a vexatious litigant but imposed an order under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules preventing him from bringing further proceedings until outstanding costs are paid.