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.

Following a motion to change parenting provisions and child support, both parties sought costs.

The mother sought full recovery costs of $28,747.49, arguing she was successful on both issues and the father behaved unreasonably.

The father sought full recovery costs of $22,318.35, arguing he was the successful party overall and the mother acted unreasonably.

The court found success was divided, with the father more successful on parenting issues and the mother more successful on child support.

Finding that the vast majority of time and resources were spent on the parenting dispute, the court ordered the mother to pay the father $5,000 in costs, to be set-off against outstanding child support.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary order to increase his parenting time with three of his children.

He alleged that the applicant mother was alienating the children from him and that increased time would provide greater predictability.

The applicant opposed the motion, citing differing parenting styles, safety concerns regarding COVID-19, and the children's expressed preferences.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer submitted that the current arrangement was consistent with the children's views.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no compelling reasons or demonstrated change in circumstances to justify altering the interim parenting schedule, noting that the children's comfort with the status quo was not persuasively linked to alienation.

Supplementary reasons for judgment regarding child support.

The court fixed the respondent father's child support arrears at $8,699.57, including contributions to section 7 expenses.

Ongoing basic child support was ordered at $256 per month based on an imputed income of $30,000.

The court declined to order the father to pay life insurance premiums to secure support due to his modest financial means.

The applicant mother and respondent father brought cross-motions to change a 2016 final order regarding parenting and child support for their nine-year-old son.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to high parental conflict and the child's expressed desire to spend more time with the father.

The court ordered a meaningful consultation process for major decisions with the mother retaining final decision-making authority, and increased the father's holiday and summer parenting time.

The court also imputed an annual income of $30,000 to the father for child support purposes, finding him voluntarily underemployed, but declined to order him to contribute to extracurricular activities due to his limited means.

The payor father brought a motion to change seeking to terminate spousal support or, alternatively, to impute a full-time minimum wage income to the recipient mother.

The mother opposed the motion and sought child support arrears and a variation of section 7 expenses.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding that the mother's continued unemployment was justified by her health issues and the significant special needs of the parties' two children, which required near full-time care.

Spousal support was maintained on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds.

The father was ordered to pay $11,312 in child support arrears.

The mother's request to vary the section 7 expense provisions was dismissed as there was no material change in circumstances.

The applicant sought continued child support for the parties' 18-year-old child who was completing high school and planning to attend university.

The respondent argued the child was no longer a child of the marriage due to her unilateral estrangement from him.

The court held that the child remained a child of the marriage, noting that situational conflict does not disentitle a child to support.

The court ordered child support to continue until the end of August and directed the parties to discuss a financial plan for the child's post-secondary education.

The applicant brought a motion for child support and disclosure, while the respondent sought a shared parenting arrangement for their two youngest children.

The court ordered ongoing child support based on the respondent's current income but declined to order retroactive support on a temporary basis due to conflicting evidence.

The court dismissed the respondent's request for a week-about parenting schedule, finding it was not in the children's best interests, and maintained the status quo of alternating weekends with a mid-week visit.

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.

The mother brought a motion to vary an interim order that had granted the father sole care and custody of their four-year-old child.

Following the interim order, the father restricted the mother's access to FaceTime calls only.

The court found that the father's unilateral decision to withhold in-person access constituted a material change in circumstances that negatively affected the child.

The court varied the interim order to grant the parties joint legal custody and awarded the mother extensive daytime parenting time, finding it in the child's best interests to restore in-person contact.

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.