Robert McNeillie

The court issued a costs endorsement following two motions where success was roughly evenly divided between the applicant mother and the respondent father.

The mother succeeded on joint decision-making responsibility with final say and child support for her older son, but not on primary residence for the child T. The father succeeded on an equal shared parenting regime but not on sole decision-making.

Neither party acted in bad faith.

Despite the mother's more reasonable offers to settle, they did not warrant special costs consequences.

The court ordered each party to bear their own costs, finding this to be the most fair, just, and reasonable decision given the balanced outcomes and the objective of encouraging settlement.

The court also addressed two remaining issues: child support for T. (including section 7 expenses) and holiday parenting time, remaining seized of these matters.

The Respondent brought a motion to set aside a final uncontested child support order, including substantial arrears, arguing lack of actual notice and an arguable defense.

The court found the Respondent's claims of non-receipt of documents and lack of awareness lacked credibility, noting his history of non-disclosure and sophisticated litigant status.

While acknowledging a potential triable issue for prospective support based on his retirement, the court dismissed the motion to set aside the fixed arrears, emphasizing the Respondent's willful non-disclosure and its negative impact on the administration of justice.

The court directed the Respondent to bring a new motion to change for future support with proper financial disclosure.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an order that the parties' three-year-old child be enrolled in public school for September 2022, rather than the private Jewish day school he currently attended.

The respondent mother argued the court should order the parties to attend a family dispute resolution process before deciding the issue.

The court declined to make a determination on school placement at this time, finding no urgency.

Instead, applying the new provisions of the Divorce Act, the court ordered the parties to attend a family dispute resolution process pursuant to s. 16.1(6) to attempt to design a comprehensive parenting plan.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy and ordering his eviction.

The appellant had been employed as a live-in superintendent, and his employment was terminated upon the sale of the building.

The Board found that under section 93 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, the tenancy terminated with the employment, as there was no agreement otherwise.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the issues raised by the appellant regarding the existence of a new tenancy agreement and the interpretation of the employment contract were questions of mixed fact and law, which are not reviewable on an appeal restricted to questions of law.