Rhinelander

The respondent brought a motion challenging the Superior Court's jurisdiction to hear the applicant's claim for corollary relief under the Divorce Act, given a separation agreement previously filed in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The respondent subsequently withdrew the motion but still sought an order for mediation and costs.

The court determined that the applicant was the successful party, as the court did have jurisdiction to hear the corollary relief application.

The court declined to reserve costs to the trial judge and ordered the respondent to pay costs of $11,000 to the applicant.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside a default judgment that granted the applicant sole decision-making responsibility, primary parenting time, and child support.

The respondent had been served with the application but failed to file an answer despite multiple extensions and warnings.

Applying the factors from Zia v. Ahmad, the court found that while the respondent moved promptly after the order was made, he did not provide an adequate explanation for his failure to participate and did not come to the court with clean hands, having failed to pay child support arrears.

The motion to set aside the default judgment was dismissed.

The applicant sought costs of $17,440.19 for a motion to consolidate civil and family proceedings.

The parties reached a consent agreement on the day of the motion.

The court found the motion was premature and could have been avoided if counsel had conferred in advance.

However, the respondents failed to comply with the rules by not filing responding materials or filing them late.

The court awarded reduced costs of $4,500 to the applicant, payable equally by the respondents.

The mother brought a motion to change a final consent order, seeking massive increases to fixed section 7 expenses and table child support, as well as financial compensation for the father's alleged failure to exercise parenting time.

She also sought interim disbursements and extensive financial disclosure, including from the father's new partner and his parents.

The court dismissed nearly all of the mother's claims, finding her disclosure requests to be a fishing expedition and her financial demands unsupported by evidence.

The court found the mother had unilaterally enrolled the child in expensive activities and used child support to fund her own lifestyle.

The father's cross-motion for overpayment of child support and section 7 expenses was granted, and the parenting schedule was varied on consent.

The mother was ordered to obtain leave before bringing further motions.