Robert F. MacLeod

The applicant sought a one-half interest in the respondent's pension from the start of their cohabitation in 1991, arguing unjust enrichment and a joint family venture.

The respondent contended the applicant was only entitled to a share accumulated during their marriage (2012-2014).

The court found no unjust enrichment or joint family venture prior to marriage, noting separate finances, the respondent's self-funded education, and the applicant's limited contributions to household and childcare responsibilities after becoming unemployed.

The applicant's claim for a pre-marital pension share was dismissed, but he was awarded a lump sum representing half the pension value accumulated during the marriage.

The applicant father sought joint custody, equal parenting time, and spousal support following a high-conflict separation.

The respondent mother sought to maintain sole custody and requested child support based on imputed income.

The court found the parties unable to communicate effectively and awarded sole custody to the mother, with slightly increased access for the father.

The court imputed income to the father for a period of deliberate underemployment to calculate child support arrears, and awarded spousal support to the father based on the mother's higher income, setting off the respective amounts.

The applicant mother sought to relocate with the nine-year-old child of the marriage from Simcoe to Exeter, Ontario, to live with her fiancé and be closer to her extended family.

The child has type 1 diabetes and struggles with reading and writing.

The parties had been sharing parenting on a week-about basis.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework and found that the proposed move would require excessive driving, disrupting the child's life and the existing shared parenting arrangement.

The court concluded that the move was primarily for the mother's benefit and not in the child's best interests, dismissing the application.

The court addressed the calculation of spousal support following the respondent's sale of a farm property, which resulted in a significant, non-recurring capital gain.

The central issue was whether and to what extent this capital gain should be included in the respondent's income for spousal support purposes, particularly after the cessation of previously imputed farming income.

The court considered the Child Support Guidelines' provisions for non-recurring amounts and the need for fairness in light of both parties' circumstances.

The parties were unable to settle the issue of costs following the respondent's interim motion regarding the primary residence of the child.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $4,500, arguing she was the successful party and had made reasonable settlement offers.

The respondent argued for no costs or partial indemnity costs in the cause.

The court found the applicant was the successful party on the predominant issue of primary residence and awarded her partial indemnity costs fixed at $3,400.

The trial addressed custody and access for three daughters following a contentious marital breakdown.

The applicant mother sought custody of all three, while the respondent father sought custody of all three or a continuation of the interim order.

The court found that the mother's actions contributed significantly to the damaged relationship with the two older daughters, B.M. and J.M.1, and dismissed her alienation claim against the father.

Custody of the youngest daughter, D.M., remained with the mother, while custody of B.M. and J.M.1 was awarded to the father.

Access for the older daughters to the mother was scaled back, with mandatory counselling for all parties and children to facilitate relationship repair.

The applicant mother brought a motion for summary judgment regarding child support and the distribution of proceeds from the sale of jointly owned property.

The respondent father claimed he was unable to work or pay child support due to a bout of encephalitis, but provided insufficient medical evidence to support an ongoing inability to work.

The court found the father voluntarily left his employment as a truck driver and was intentionally under-employed.

The court imputed income to the father at $66,000 per year, calculated child support arrears, and ordered the applicant to be reimbursed for expenses incurred to prepare the joint property for sale.

The parties separated after a three-year common law relationship.

The applicant sought a writ of possession for his home, while the respondent sought interim child support for her two children from a previous relationship and interim spousal support.

The court granted the writ of possession but delayed its execution for 30 days to allow the respondent to relocate.

The court dismissed the claim for interim child support, finding the respondent failed to establish a prima facie case that the applicant stood in the place of a parent.

The court granted interim spousal support, awarding a lump sum of $1,200 and $600 per month for three months to assist with relocation, reducing to $114 per month thereafter.

Following a prior endorsement directing the sale of the matrimonial home and addressing disclosure issues, the court considered written submissions on costs.

The applicant, having been more successful on the motions, sought $2,500 in costs payable from a joint account.

The respondent argued for no costs or costs in the cause.

The court awarded the applicant $2,500 in costs, finding the amount reasonable, but directed that it be paid from the net proceeds of the matrimonial home sale rather than the joint account due to outstanding disclosure.

The applicant was successful on his motion to sever the divorce and sought costs.

The respondent agreed the applicant was entitled to costs, but disputed the quantum.

The court noted that delay in addressing corollary issues in a companion action unnecessarily complicated the proceeding.

Costs were awarded to the applicant in the fixed amount of $1,500, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant brought a motion for the sale of the former matrimonial home, while the respondent brought a cross-motion to transfer the proceeding to Simcoe County and for financial disclosure.

The court adjourned the transfer request as premature and ordered both parties to comply with prior disclosure consents.

Finding that the parties owned the home as tenants in common, the court granted the applicant's motion for sale, noting his prima facie right to partition or sale under the Partition Act and the absence of evidence showing malicious conduct or jeopardy to the respondent.

The applicant sought spousal support, access to the children, and an equalization of net family properties following a ten-year cohabitation.

The court found the applicant intentionally underemployed, failed to disclose significant assets including an inheritance, and made no financial contribution to the family.

The court dismissed the spousal support claim, imputed income to the applicant, and ordered an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act, resulting in no equalization payment to the applicant.

On a contested passing of accounts, estate trustees sold the estate’s principal asset—a farm—to a sibling beneficiary for substantially less than its appraised market value and without exposing the property to the open market.

Beneficiary objectors alleged breach of fiduciary duty, improper estate expenditures, and excessive executor compensation.

The court held the estate trustees breached fiduciary obligations by selling the asset below fair market value and failing to treat beneficiaries impartially.

Certain estate expenditures incurred in connection with the improper transaction were characterized as waste and ordered repaid personally by the trustees, while other costs associated with a subsequent open-market sale were allowed.

Executor compensation was significantly reduced and the accounts approved subject to the court’s corrections and disallowances.

Following settlement of a motion to change child support, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant had sought increased child support and arrears consistent with the Child Support Guidelines and had made several settlement offers more favourable to the respondent than the ultimate settlement.

The respondent resisted paying guideline support but ultimately agreed to retroactive and ongoing payments.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considering the parties’ offers to settle and conduct, the court held that the applicant was the successful party.

Substantial indemnity costs were ordered in favour of the applicant.

Costs decision following multiple motions in a matrimonial proceeding concerning disclosure issues and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found that although success on some minor issues was divided, the applicant was successful on the principal contested matter relating to control of the listing and sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, but the court declined to award them due to the absence of settlement offers and lack of egregious conduct by the respondent.

Applying a partial indemnity approach and recognizing the mixed success, the court fixed costs at $2,000 inclusive of HST.

The court ordered that the amount be paid from the respondent’s share of the sale proceeds of the matrimonial home with interest.

Following a family law motion concerning guideline child support and interim disbursements, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party was successful in obtaining retroactive set-off guideline child support but unsuccessful on a request for interim disbursements and costs.

Applying Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, the court found the moving party was substantially successful and entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

However, the claimed costs were reduced due to time spent on unsuccessful issues and concerns about the moving party’s evidence regarding refinancing of a business.

The court ultimately reduced the requested amount and awarded a lump sum costs award.

The respondent father brought a motion for interim child support in a hybrid custody arrangement, where two children lived with him and one child split time equally between the parents.

He also sought an advance for interim disbursements.

The court declined to impute additional income to the father's cash-based ice cream business due to insufficient evidence on an interim motion.

Applying the 'economies of scale' approach for hybrid custody, the court calculated the set-off amounts and ordered the applicant mother to pay $651 per month in child support, plus retroactive support.

The motion for interim disbursements was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a judgment from an undefended trial, abandoning his appeal regarding jointly owned real estate.

The sole remaining issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to support deducting the value of a personal injury action from the respondent's net family property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the respondent had adequately discharged her onus under section 4(3) of the Family Law Act.

The mother, who had primary residence of the children under a joint custody agreement, appealed a motions judge's order refusing to permit her to relocate with the children from Delhi to Tecumseh for new employment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motions judge erred in principle by failing to give sufficient consideration to the custodial parent's views, the children's wishes, and the enhancement of the mother's ability to care for the children, as required by Gordon v. Goertz.

The mother was permitted to move, with an order to share travel for the father's access.