Robert Stead

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after a long marriage.

The court determined three main issues: child support for their 18-year-old son, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the adult son remained a dependent child due to emotional difficulties despite not attending school full-time, ordering ongoing child support.

The court imputed income to both parties and ordered the father to pay ongoing spousal support of $2,384 monthly.

To satisfy the equalization payment and provide stability for the son, the court ordered the matrimonial home vested in the mother, with the jointly owned rental property to be sold.

The moving party (former husband) brought a motion to change, seeking to vary and terminate spousal support payable to the responding party (former wife).

He argued that his income had decreased, her income had increased due to RRSP withdrawals, and she was capable of working.

The responding party argued her health conditions (fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome) prevented her from working and her income had not materially changed.

The court found no material change in the moving party's income, noting his business had returned to previous levels and he continued to make maximum RRSP contributions.

The court also declined to impute income to the responding party, finding her health issues prevented employment and her RRSP withdrawals were necessary for expenses.

The motion to change was dismissed.

The Kenora Rainy River District Child and Family Services brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a further six-month Society Wardship Order for two children found to be in need of protection due to emotional harm.

The children had been apprehended in October 2014 due to mental health concerns including self-mutilation and suicide ideation.

They were placed in a specialized treatment foster home in Southern Ontario where they demonstrated significant improvement.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking return of the children to her care, but provided no clinical evidence or cooperation with the Agency.

The father agreed with the Agency's position and was noted in default.

The court found no genuine issue requiring trial and granted the Society Wardship Order for six months, finding that the children's best interests required continuation of their specialized placement.

On a family law motion, the applicant sought to strike the respondent's answer for non-compliance with a prior disclosure order, amend her application to add a constructive trust claim against the respondent's pension, and obtain costs.

The amendment was granted on consent, and the disclosure issue became moot when an appraisal report was finally produced before the hearing.

The court held that a party cannot unilaterally decide that court-ordered valuation evidence is unnecessary, and found that the delay caused unnecessary expense and slowed the proceeding.

Costs of the motion were fixed in favour of the applicant.

Following a trial concerning a passing of accounts relating to the estate of a deceased person, the successful objector sought over $87,000 in costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court emphasized that costs are discretionary and guided by proportionality under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although the objector had succeeded in requiring repayment of $10,000 and a reduction in compensation claimed by the estate trustee, the court found the requested costs grossly disproportionate to the amounts at issue and the manner in which the litigation was conducted.

The proceedings involved limited witnesses, no discoveries, and inefficiencies arising from personal family disputes.

The court therefore fixed modest costs to reflect proportionality and the limited financial stakes of the litigation.

Application concerning the passing of accounts of an attorney acting under a continuing power of attorney for property under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The attorney transferred substantial funds from the incapable person's accounts into a personal PayPal account, failed to maintain proper accounting records as required by regulation, and used estate funds to pay for personal expenses, claiming them as compensation.

The court found several breaches of statutory duties, including inadequate record-keeping and improper methods of taking compensation, though the incapable person's financial well-being was not materially harmed.

Exercising its discretion on a passing of accounts, the court reduced the attorney’s compensation and ordered repayment of a portion of the funds taken.

The attorney was required to repay $10,000 to the estate while the accounts were otherwise passed.

Following a family law mobility trial where the applicant father was successful in having the children reside primarily with him, he sought costs of $77,664.53 based on an offer to settle.

The respondent mother, who had limited financial means, argued for no costs or a nominal amount.

The court declined to apply the strict costs consequences of the offer to settle, noting the difficult nature of mobility cases and the reasonableness of both parties' positions.

Considering the respondent's modest means and the costs she would incur to exercise access, the court fixed costs at $15,000 payable to the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support following a 17‑year marriage, together with orders requiring the respondent to maintain extended health coverage and life insurance designation.

The respondent conceded entitlement but argued that support should fall below the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines due to delay in seeking support, the applicant’s relocation and employment decision, and his assumption of joint debts.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no prejudice from the delay, imputing income consistent with the applicant’s recent employment, and concluding that the respondent’s financial circumstances allowed support within the SSAG range.

Interim spousal support was ordered near the lower end of the SSAG range.

The applicant father brought an ex parte motion to enforce a prior interim custody order granting him custody of three children after the respondent mother failed to return them following weekend access.

The court found that the existing custody order remained in effect and that the respondent had not complied with its terms.

The father sought a police enforcement order directing authorities to apprehend and return the children.

The court granted the motion and authorized any police force in Ontario to apprehend the children and return them to the father in accordance with the prior custody order.

The applicant father sought joint custody and access, while the respondent mother sought sole custody and child support.

During the trial, the mother relocated to Alberta with the child to secure better employment and family support.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding the parties were unable to communicate effectively and the mother had been the primary caregiver since birth.

The court permitted the mother's relocation to Alberta, finding it was in the child's best interests, and ordered a phased-in access schedule for the father.

The father was also ordered to pay his proportionate share of section 7 child care expenses.

A family law matter involving custody, access, and mobility of a young child born in 2010.

The applicant sought custody, increased access, and DNA testing to establish paternity.

The respondent sought sole custody and child support.

The parties had an on-and-off relationship and were unable to communicate effectively.

The respondent relocated to Alberta with the child without notice during the proceedings.

The court awarded sole custody to the respondent, permitted the relocation to Alberta, and established a phased access schedule for the applicant involving visits to Edmonton and visits when the respondent returns to Ontario.

Following a three‑day family trial addressing spousal support and valuation of a pension for equalization, the court considered costs.

The applicant obtained spousal support and succeeded in part on pension valuation, while the respondent succeeded on certain income findings and other positions, resulting in divided success.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the discretion under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, the court emphasized that costs must remain reasonable and proportionate.

Although both parties achieved partial success, the court found it was necessary for the applicant to bring the proceeding to obtain support and equalization.

The court therefore awarded the applicant reduced costs reflecting the mixed outcome.

The applicant husband appealed a spousal support order that required him to pay support for approximately eleven years before it was reviewable.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the duration excessive and an error in principle given the respondent wife's age, education, and employment history.

The court varied the order to a time-limited duration of three years at $700 per month to promote economic self-sufficiency.