Rebecca E. Rosenstock

This decision resolves a complex family law dispute involving property division, beneficial ownership, child and spousal support, and related trust and equalization claims.

The court found that the Quinn Property was always beneficially owned by the spouses, despite title transfers, and that Omar was the true owner of Cedar Woodwork Inc. The court ordered an unequal division of net family property due to Omar’s reckless depletion of assets and lack of disclosure, and set child and spousal support based on imputed income.

The judgment also addresses the enforceability of an alleged vendor take-back mortgage and the parties’ credibility.

The mother (Respondent) brought a motion for disbursement of proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home (Hanlon property), seeking to apply them to various debts, including a second mortgage on her current residence.

The father (Applicant) brought a cross-motion seeking distribution of the Hanlon proceeds according to a marriage contract, distribution of proceeds from another jointly owned property (Tremblant), and an adjustment to child support.

The court upheld the validity of the marriage contract, found the father had frustrated the sale of the Hanlon property, and largely granted the mother's requests for immediate disbursement of the Hanlon proceeds, including payment of outstanding child support and section 7 expenses from the father's share.

The father's child support claim was dismissed due to insufficient disclosure, and his request for distribution of the Tremblant property proceeds was dismissed without prejudice to be argued at trial.

The respondent mother brought a contempt motion against the applicant father for breaching various court orders and domestic contracts related to children's psychological services, dietary restrictions, non-disclosure, civil conduct, child support, and Section 7 expenses.

The applicant father brought a cross-motion to stay and vary child support.

The court found the father in contempt of one count (refusing to follow physician referrals) and in non-compliance of seven other counts.

Several other allegations were dismissed.

The father's cross-motion to vary child support was dismissed due to insufficient financial disclosure and non-compliance.

The court issued specific orders for both parties to ensure compliance with parenting, support, and disclosure obligations.

The Respondent father sought orders for additional summer parenting time, delivery of a canoe, Annika's iPhone password, and adjustment of child support payments.

The court dismissed the requests for expanded parenting time and travel, emphasizing the children's best interests and the principle against varying interim orders without a substantial change in circumstances.

The child support issue was resolved by consent, reducing the father's payments.

The canoe and password issues were also resolved by agreement.

The court noted the extensive litigation history and urged the parties to proceed to trial.

The respondent father, having successfully brought an urgent motion to reinstate his children in public school, sought costs.

The court found the applicant mother's conduct unreasonable, including attempting to relitigate a decided issue, unilaterally changing the children's schooling, and misleading the father and court.

Despite the mother's financial circumstances, the court awarded the father $3,000 in substantial indemnity costs, deeming it fair and reasonable given the mother's conduct and the case's circumstances.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the Applicant (Father) for parenting time with his child.

The Applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court applied Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, considering factors such as the importance and complexity of the issues, the parties' conduct, and access to justice.

While the Applicant was largely successful in obtaining parenting time, the court found the issues not complex and did not find bad faith on the Respondent's part, noting her language difficulties, change of counsel, and stated fear of the Father.

Given the Respondent's limited financial means and Legal Aid funding, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, reducing the amount sought to $4,000 to ensure access to justice.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking parenting time with the child, who he had not seen since the parties' separation ten months prior.

The respondent mother sought supervised parenting time, alleging past abuse and mental health concerns regarding the father.

The court, applying the child's best interests principle and the maximum contact principle, found no sufficient evidence to warrant supervised access.

The court crafted a gradual step-up parenting schedule for the father, rejecting his proposed immediate extensive schedule as too abrupt, and dismissed the mother's request for supervision.

This costs endorsement followed a four-day family law trial concerning parenting and support issues.

Both parties sought costs, arguing greater success and the benefit of their offers to settle.

The court found that success at trial was divided, with neither party's offer to settle being more favourable than the outcome.

The court also determined that neither party's conduct rose to the level of unreasonable or bad faith to warrant a costs order against them.

As a result, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs, finding this outcome reasonable and proportionate given the divided success.

Following the dismissal of the father's urgent motion regarding custody and access, the mother sought costs on a full recovery basis.

The court found the mother was the successful party and entitled to costs.

Considering the father's failure to attempt negotiation and the reasonableness of the mother's counsel's fees, the court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $5,150, declining full recovery due to a lack of detailed docket breakdown.

The parties brought urgent motions concerning interim custody and parenting time for their two children.

The father sought sole custody and primary residence, while the mother sought an interim order for a week-on/week-off schedule and a return to previous orders.

The court dismissed the father's motion for sole custody and primary residence, maintaining the mother's primary residence and decision-making authority.

The court ordered a gradual transition to a week-on/week-off parenting schedule over three months, recognizing the children's need for stability amidst pandemic-related disruptions and the importance of both parents actively encouraging time with the other.

Procedural issues with affidavit evidence were also noted.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought an early status review application concerning the child E. The mother, A.H., brought a motion for in-person access in her home, which was opposed by the Society and the father, K.T. The court granted the mother's motion for in-person access, subject to extensive supervision and conditions, including prohibitions on alcohol use while caregiving, contact with her ex-partner Mr. P., and adherence to COVID-19 guidelines.

The court found that the mother had not been transparent about her relationship with Mr. P. and had not strictly adhered to COVID-19 protocols, but that identified risks could be mitigated by supervision.

This family law trial addressed custody, access, child support, and a restraining order.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, primary residence, and various financial orders, including retroactive child support and reinstatement of arrears, as well as a restraining order and passport authorization.

The respondent father sought joint custody and expanded overnight parenting time.

The court granted the mother sole custody and primary residence, requiring her to consult the father on major decisions.

The father was granted expanded overnight access.

The court imputed income to the father for child support purposes and reinstated child support arrears by setting aside a previous order.

The mother's requests for passport authorization and a restraining order were dismissed.

The mother brought a motion for the return of her infant child to her temporary care and custody pending the final disposition of a child protection application.

The child had been removed by the children's aid society due to concerns regarding the mother's alcohol consumption and the child's exposure to domestic conflict with the father.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the child would be at risk of harm if returned without supervision.

However, the court concluded that the risks could be adequately mitigated by a supervision order with strict terms, including the full-time presence of an approved supervisor in the home.

The child was ordered returned to the mother's care subject to the society's supervision.

The children's aid society brought a motion for an order placing three children in the temporary care and custody of their father, subject to a supervision order.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing the children would be at risk with the father due to his history of domestic violence and substance abuse, and requested the children remain in foster care until she could secure housing.

The court found credible and trustworthy evidence that the children would be at risk of harm if returned to the mother due to her unmanaged mental health and substance abuse issues, and that a supervision order would not provide adequate protection.

The court concluded it was in the children's best interests to be placed in the temporary care and custody of the father, who had demonstrated sobriety and the ability to provide a safe home.

The Crown sought to admit portions of Jill Gil's bail hearing testimony under the principled approach to hearsay.

Jill Gil, the grandmother of accused Marcus Gil, was unavailable to testify at trial.

The court found that while the necessity criterion for hearsay was met due to her unavailability, the threshold reliability was not established.

The court also determined that the Crown's cross-examination of Jill Gil at the bail hearing was primarily a discovery mechanism, which was improper and would render the admission of such evidence unfair to the accused.

Consequently, the court ruled against the admission of Jill Gil's bail hearing testimony.

The mother contested the father's request for unsupervised access to their child, who has autism spectrum disorder.

The father had a history of domestic conflict, erratic behavior, and mental health issues requiring psychiatric treatment.

The court ordered that the father's access remain supervised by his mother until he provides an updated medical report from his family physician confirming his compliance with mental health treatment and medication.

The Applicant father brought an emergency motion seeking the return of the child to Ottawa, temporary sole custody, and primary residence, along with other parenting relief.

The Respondent mother brought a cross-motion for temporary sole custody, a restraining order, and child support, requesting no or supervised access for the father.

The court found both parties' allegations lacked full credibility and made an interim order based on the child's best interests.

The child was to remain in the mother's primary care, with the father granted unsupervised access.

Travel restrictions were imposed, passports were to be held in trust, and communication was limited.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer was appointed.

Interim child support of $500 per month was ordered for the mother, based on an imputed income for the father due to insufficient financial disclosure.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2013 final order, seeking joint custody and a 50/50 parenting schedule for her 7-year-old daughter, H.M.C. The respondent father opposed, arguing no material change in circumstances and that contact was not in the child's best interests.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the mother's demonstrated progress in counselling, stable parenting of her other children, and cooperation with the Children's Aid Society (CAS).

While denying joint custody, the court ordered gradual supervised access for the mother through the Supervised Access Program, emphasizing the child's best interests, the need for professional guidance during reintegration, and the importance of sibling contact.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended five children due to concerns including alleged sexual abuse, drug involvement, and unexplained injuries to one child.

While four children were returned to the mother's care under supervision, the temporary care and custody of one child, N., remained at issue.

The mother moved for N.'s return, which the father opposed due to concerns about supervision, a past grow-op, and the mother's candour.

The Society took no position on N.'s placement.

The court, applying section 51(3) of the CFSA, found no reasonable grounds to believe N. would suffer harm that could not be adequately protected by a supervision order, and ordered N.'s return to the mother and her partner under specific conditions.