Rachel Stephenson

This trial involved an unmarried couple's claims for unjust enrichment and constructive trust regarding two properties (Stone Street and Greenlees Drive) and Section 7 child expenses.

The court found both parties' financial evidence unreliable.

The father was awarded $8,000 plus interest for his contribution to the mother's Stone Street property, and the mother was awarded $3,000 plus interest for her out-of-pocket expenses on the father's Greenlees Drive property.

The mother's claim for Section 7 expenses was dismissed due to lack of substantiation and consent.

Costs for parenting issues and the trial were reserved for separate submissions.

The respondent brought a motion to change a 2012 child support order, seeking to terminate support for one child and reduce support for others based on his actual income.

The applicant filed a response, seeking to impute income to the respondent and enforce section 7 expenses.

The court found the respondent intentionally underemployed and imputed income to him in a staggered manner from 2017 onwards.

It determined that the respondent's child support obligation for a child with health issues continued longer than he argued, overriding the separation agreement's terms due to legislative amendments and unconscionable circumstances.

The court ordered payment of retroactive child support and section 7 expenses, but declined to dismiss the respondent's motion based on an outstanding costs order.

The parties resolved a Motion to Change regarding child support and section 7 expenses by way of a consent order, leaving the issue of costs to be determined by the court.

The moving party sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing she was successful and the responding party behaved unreasonably.

The court reviewed the settlement terms and found no clear case of success for either party, as both made compromises.

Finding no unreasonable behaviour or bad faith, the court made no order as to costs.

The applicant husband brought a motion to set aside a final consent order for custody in favour of the respondent wife and to impose restrictions on her travelling with the children.

The husband argued the consent order should be set aside under Rule 25(19)(c) of the Family Law Rules for not deciding a matter before the court (children's best interests not fully explored) or on contract law principles (lack of consensus ad idem, language barrier, duress, inadequate legal advice).

The court dismissed the husband's motion, finding no legal error for appellate review under Rule 25(19)(c) and that the contract law arguments (language barrier, duress, inadequate legal advice, risks of travel/absconding, FGM risk) were not substantiated by evidence under an objective standard.

While the motion to set aside was dismissed, the final order was varied by consent to include provisions for the wife to notify the husband of international travel with the children.

Both the plaintiff and defendant brought motions for security for costs.

The plaintiff, Crossover Health Care Fund, LLC, sought security for costs against the defendant's counterclaim, arguing the defendant, Pivotal Therapeutics Inc., had insufficient assets and that significant aspects of the counterclaim were statute-barred.

The defendant, Pivotal Therapeutics Inc., sought security for costs against the plaintiff's main action, arguing the plaintiff was not ordinarily resident in Ontario.

The court granted both motions, ordering the defendant to post $80,000 in security for costs for its counterclaim and the plaintiff to post $45,000 in security for costs for its defence to the main action.

The court found the defendant's valuation of its assets, particularly intellectual property not owned by it, was insufficient to demonstrate solvency for a costs order.

The court also found that many aspects of the counterclaim appeared to be statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and did not have a real possibility of success.

Following the settlement of a family law application regarding custody and mobility, the respondent sought costs on the basis that he was the successful party and had made an informal offer to settle.

The applicant opposed the costs claim, arguing she had proposed a private assessment early on and voluntarily agreed to pay child support.

The court found that neither party could be declared a clear winner and that the respondent's informal offer did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 18.

To encourage the judicious settlement of family disputes, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The applicant mother sought an interim order for table child support from the respondent father, pending trial.

The parties had a history of agreements for joint and shared custody with no child support, given their similar incomes and shared expenses, even after relocations due to military postings.

The mother argued that the shared parenting arrangement was no longer feasible and that she had primary care of the children for at least 75% of the time, thus triggering table support under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The father contended that their agreements, which anticipated mobility and provided for no child support, should be respected, and that the court has discretion under the Family Law Act to deviate from Guidelines if special provisions benefit the child.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no compelling reason to depart from the agreed-upon status quo on an interim basis, noting the similar incomes and substantial time each parent spent with the children, leaving the determination of changed circumstances to the trial judge.