Richard P. Bowles

The father sought to increase interim access to the children, aiming for equal parenting time, while the mother sought to reduce the father's access and requested additional terms regarding parental conduct and the children's dietary restrictions.

The court dismissed both parents' requests to vary the duration of interim access, maintaining the existing schedule from a prior interim agreement.

However, the mother's requests for specific conduct terms, including adherence to dietary restrictions and rules against discussing adult issues with children or disparaging the other parent, were granted.

The court emphasized the children's best interests, the need for stability, and the parties' inability to consistently follow agreed-upon terms due to high conflict.

The plaintiff commercial tenant brought an urgent motion after being locked out of its business premises by the defendant landlord.

The lease required the landlord to provide 30 days' notice before terminating the lease and re-entering the premises.

The court found that a spreadsheet allegedly provided to the tenant did not constitute proper notice under the lease.

The court held that the landlord unlawfully terminated the lease and granted the tenant's motion, ordering the return of items taken from the premises.

The moving party sought to lift the stay of proceedings in her former husband's bankruptcy to pursue an equalization claim against his military pension.

Both parties had filed for bankruptcy and been discharged.

The moving party argued the bankrupt concealed his bankruptcy and that her claim was not provable or should survive discharge.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no concealment and applying established law that an equalization claim is a provable claim in bankruptcy that is extinguished upon discharge if not pursued beforehand.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial summary judgment to enforce a personal guarantee executed by the defendant for a $300,000 US loan to a corporation.

The defendant raised the defence of economic duress, arguing he was pressured into signing the guarantee to save the business.

The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issue for trial because the pressure was legitimate commercial pressure and the defendant had subsequently affirmed the guarantee.

The court also awarded pre and post-judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act, despite the guarantee only covering the principal amount.

The applicant sought primary residence and shared decision-making with final authority, and child support.

The respondent sought shared decision-making, equal residential parenting time, and temporary spousal support.

The court granted the applicant primary residence and shared decision-making with final authority, citing the respondent's surveillance activities and threats as reasons for a serious lack of trust and finding his conduct not in the children's best interests.

The respondent's request for equal residential parenting and temporary spousal support was dismissed, with the court finding no serious triable issue to set aside the marriage contract's spousal support waiver under the Miglin test.

Interim child support was ordered, and the issue of section 7 expenses and final child support was deferred.

This endorsement addresses costs following a 35-day trial concerning parenting and financial issues.

The applicant sought substantial costs for a contempt motion and financial issues, while the respondent also claimed costs.

The court awarded the applicant $45,000 in full recovery costs for the contempt motion and $10,000 in partial recovery costs for financial issues, both payable by the respondent.

However, no costs were awarded to either party for the parenting issues due to both parties' limited success and unreasonable litigation conduct.

The court also ordered a reapportionment of supervised access fees, to be paid proportionately to income, finding both parents contributed to its necessity.

The respondent mother brought a motion to suspend a final parenting order that mandated equal time-sharing for the parties' eldest child, A.K.H., with the applicant father.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking dismissal and compliance with the existing order.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to an altercation between A.K.H. and the father, and A.K.H.'s worsening anxiety and consistent refusal to return to the father's care.

Prioritizing A.K.H.'s best interests and expressed wishes, the court suspended the equal time-sharing order, allowing A.K.H. to choose her residential arrangements.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer was appointed to provide ongoing legal representation for both children.

The father brought a motion for disclosure of the mother's and child's cell phone records and devices, alleging the mother was texting the child to sabotage his parenting time.

The court found the request was properly framed under Rule 20(5) of the Family Law Rules.

The court partially granted the motion, ordering limited disclosure of the mother's text messages and Telus records for specific dates, but refused to order production of the child's devices to protect her privacy.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary custody, access, child support, and spousal support.

The parties disputed the respondent's income from his self-employed hair salon business and whether he should have overnight access given allegations of substance abuse.

The court granted the applicant primary care and control of the children and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The respondent was granted conditional access, including overnights, provided he abstains from alcohol and drugs.

Due to insufficient financial disclosure, the court imputed the respondent's income at $100,000 and ordered interim child and spousal support accordingly.

In Part Two of a family law trial, the court determined the remaining property and support issues between the parties.

The court calculated the equalization of net family property, ordering the respondent to pay $54,023.39.

The court also addressed child support, ordering the respondent to pay $237 per month based on a hybrid shared parenting arrangement, and apportioned section 7 expenses.

The applicant was awarded a lump sum of $45,000 in spousal support based on non-compensatory entitlement due to the economic disadvantage arising from the marriage breakdown.

Finally, the court awarded the applicant $8,500 in occupation rent for the respondent's exclusive use of the mortgage-free matrimonial home.

The applicant, James Michael Demers, sought a declaration that a fabric-covered framed structure (boathouse) on his neighbours' property required a building permit from the Township of Killaloe-Hagarty-Richards.

The Township argued the structure was a "tent" exempt from permit requirements and that Demers' application was time-barred as an unappealed CBO decision.

The court found that the Chief Building Official (CBO) had not issued a formal written decision, thus Demers' application was not time-barred.

The court further determined, based on photographic evidence and definitions in the Building Code Act and municipal by-laws, that the structure was a multi-storey, permanent "building" and not a temporary "tent" therefore requiring a building permit.

The application for declaratory relief was granted, and costs were awarded to the applicant on a substantial indemnity basis due to the importance of the issue and the Township's conduct in raising a late limitation period defence.

In a high-conflict family law trial, the court addressed parenting issues, custody, access, and a motion for contempt.

The mother had repeatedly and unilaterally denied the father access to the children, citing concerns about his anger and past domestic violence.

The court found the mother in civil contempt for breaching access orders, noting she lacked an objectively reasonable basis to terminate access and failed to take reasonable steps to comply.

The court ordered her to pay a $15,000 penalty into the children's RESPs and provide make-up time.

Given the severe parental conflict and the deteriorating mental health of the eldest child, the court ordered a divided parallel parenting regime with limited joint decision-making, an alternating-week residential schedule for the daughter, and alternate weekends for the son, along with mandatory therapeutic interventions for both parents.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim relief regarding child custody and access while the trial decision was under reserve by the trial judge.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion.

The motions judge dismissed both motions, holding that it is highly improper for a motions judge to intervene and make findings of fact or interim orders on issues with which the trial judge is seized.

The parties were directed to bring any motions to re-open the trial or alter temporary orders before the trial judge.

The court issued a corrigenda to an endorsement released on August 18, 2016.

The amendment added a sub-paragraph adjourning the applicant's motion for an order removing the prevention of the parents attending the children's events while in the care of the other parent.

The motion was adjourned to be brought back in accordance with the Family Law Rules.

The parties attended a motion and cross-motion regarding the suspension of supervised access.

The father was successful on his motion and sought costs on a full indemnity basis for multiple events, totaling $63,662.67.

The court declined to award costs for the case conferences, finding neither party achieved particular success.

For the motion, the court awarded the father costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the mother's conduct, which unreasonably delayed the suspension of supervision and increased costs.

After reviewing the dockets and reducing excessive time and disbursements, the court fixed the costs payable by the mother to the father at $10,889.81.

This endorsement addresses the costs of two motions concerning section 7 expenses, where the respondent father was the moving party.

The respondent's claim and offer to settle significantly exceeded the ordered outcome.

While the applicant mother's offer was more reasonable, it was made late, and she had initially resisted contribution and failed to file a financial statement.

Considering these offsetting factors, the court awarded the applicant mother $900 in costs for the final preparation and argument of the second motion.

This motion addressed the reasonableness of the Applicant mother's refusals to contribute to specific s. 7 expenses for the parties' two children.

The Respondent father sought payment for past post-secondary and competitive hockey expenses, and a prospective order for s. 7 contributions.

The court strictly adhered to the scope of a prior order, limiting the review to expenses incurred up to March 10, 2016, and rejecting the father's attempt to expand the motion into a de facto motion to change.

The court ordered the mother to pay 40% of Ashley's post-secondary income shortfall ($760) and a reduced amount for Michael's hockey expenses ($2,022), after disallowing mileage and certain other items.

The mother's refusal to contribute to these allowed amounts was deemed unreasonable.

The father's request for a go-forward order was dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary an interim order by removing or suspending the requirement for supervised access visits with his children.

The respondent mother consented to the removal of supervision but conditioned it on a variation of the access schedule, bringing a cross-motion for this purpose based on a psychologist's recommendation.

The court granted the father's motion to suspend supervision, finding it in the children's best interests to optimize contact and noting the supervision had become problematic and costly.

However, the court dismissed the mother's cross-motion to vary the access schedule, determining that the psychologist's report was intended for trial and that changing the schedule six weeks before trial would create instability for the children.

The court ordered a gradual transition to unsupervised access and mandated parental consultation with the psychologist for assistance.

The husband appealed the trial judge's equalization payment and spousal support orders, arguing errors in determining the matrimonial home, denying a tax liability deduction, and calculating support.

The wife cross-appealed the denial of pre-judgment interest, indexing, security for support, and compensatory support, as well as the treatment of mortgage payments on excluded property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's factual findings or exercise of discretion, though it amended a review clause on consent.

The parties attended a reference to deal with jointly owned properties and related accounting issues arising from the division of the proceeds of sale of jointly owned properties, following a trial order.

The Master addressed various post-separation adjustments, including carrying costs for the matrimonial home, a rooming house, and a trailer.

The Master found that post-separation adjustments for costs incurred prior to trial were subject to res judicata and should have been raised at trial.

The Master also determined that the applicant was not entitled to a credit for carrying costs of the matrimonial home post-separation, as they were offset by the respondent's potential claim for occupational rent.

Various other financial adjustments were ordered to be made from the proceeds of sale held in trust.