Robyn Cecile Switzer

The applicant mother was substantially successful on her motion for spousal support and interim disbursements.

She sought $20,000 in full indemnity costs.

The court found she did not beat her non-severable offer to settle on all issues, as she obtained slightly less spousal support and substantially less in interim disbursements than offered.

Applying principles of proportionality and rejecting the respondent father's unproven claim of inability to pay given his $500,000 annual income, the court awarded the mother $12,000 in all-inclusive costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim child support, spousal support, proportionate sharing of section 7 expenses, and interim disbursements.

The respondent father, a high-income earner, argued that income should be imputed to the mother and that spousal support should be minimized to equalize net disposable incomes due to high carrying costs and private school expenses.

The court declined to impute income at the interim stage, ordered table child support, and awarded spousal support at the low end of the SSAG range.

The court also authorized a partial release of funds from a joint line of credit for the mother's interim disbursements.

The appellant appealed a Family Court trial decision that found the parties were spouses under the Family Law Act and ordered him to pay spousal and child support based on an imputed income of $156,841.89.

The appellant argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in assessing the relationship, awarding support, and imputing income.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no material misapprehension of evidence or error in law, and upheld the trial judge's credibility findings and support orders.

A motion to introduce fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The appellant moved for a stay pending appeal of a trial judgment ordering him to pay child and spousal support based on an imputed income of $156,841.89.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the appellant failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The father brought a motion seeking a temporary change in the primary residence of his two children (ages 8 and 10) from the mother to himself.

This was based on disclosures made by the children to their counsel regarding the mother's verbal abuse and excessive punishment.

The mother opposed the motion and sought the children's immediate return.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding that the disclosures, while concerning, did not amount to "compelling circumstances" to justify disturbing the six-year status quo.

The court ordered the children to resume primary residence with the mother, with protective terms regarding parental conduct and discipline.

The applicants, a same-sex couple, sought a declaration of parentage and primary residence of a child born to the respondents.

The parties had an informal agreement that the applicants would raise the child, but the respondents sought the child's return after four months.

The court found that the statutory requirements for a declaration of parentage under s. 13 of the Children's Law Reform Act were not met, as there was no pre-conception intent for all four parties to be parents.

However, applying the best interests of the child test, the court granted the applicants primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility, with gradually increasing parenting time for the respondents.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal several orders of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of Ramsay J. dated June 30, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated December 9, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $3,500.

The respondent brought a motion to expand access to the child and to stay a previous costs order.

The applicant opposed, arguing no urgency and that the respondent should not be heard due to unpaid costs.

The court dismissed the motion to stay costs, finding no urgency.

Regarding access, the court found urgency due to the child's developmental stage and pandemic-related delays, and ordered a phased expansion of Sunday access hours, but denied immediate overnight access.

The court also ordered the respondent to comply with public health regulations related to his employment as a nurse.

No costs were awarded for this motion.

This ruling on costs followed a motion regarding custody and access.

The applicant sought costs on both full and partial indemnity bases, while the respondent sought partial indemnity costs.

The court dismissed the applicant's claim for costs for the period from September 11 to October 5, 2018, and entirely dismissed the respondent's claim for costs.

The applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs for the period from October 25 to December 15, 2018, totaling $14,048.28, finding the respondent's conduct unreasonable during that later period.

The applicant mother sought the return of her child to her primary care after the child was placed with the respondent father following the mother's temporary psychiatric episodes.

The father opposed, seeking to maintain primary care.

The court, applying the best interests of the child principle under the Children’s Law Reform Act, found that the mother's episodes were temporary and appropriately addressed.

The court emphasized returning to the pre-existing status quo where the mother was the primary caregiver, as the urgent situation had passed and the mother could safely resume care.

The father's attempt to change custody was deemed opportunistic.

The court ordered the child's return to the mother's primary care with a clarified parenting schedule and ordered both parties to cooperate with Family Connexions.

The applicant sought costs of over $147,000 following a family law trial where the respondent's pleadings were struck due to his failure to provide disclosure and his egregious litigation conduct.

The court found that the applicant beat her final offer to settle, entitling her to full recovery costs from that date.

Furthermore, the court found the respondent's conduct throughout the litigation, including failing to adhere to court orders and acting to inflict financial harm, constituted bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

The court awarded the applicant full recovery costs fixed at $110,000, payable forthwith from the respondent's assets.

In an uncontested family law trial following the striking of the respondent's pleadings for failure to disclose, the court imputed an income of $300,000 to the respondent based on his past earnings and unexplained luxurious lifestyle.

The court ordered the respondent to pay ongoing child support, section 7 expenses, and spousal support.

Additionally, the court awarded retroactive support and an equalization payment of $717,393 to the applicant.

The court also ordered that the respondent's previous advances to the applicant be set off against his prospective periodic support obligations to secure payment, given his history of non-compliance with court orders.

At the commencement of a family law trial, the applicant moved to strike the respondent's pleadings for his ongoing failure to comply with multiple court orders regarding financial disclosure.

Despite being given a final opportunity by a previous judge to obtain his income tax returns, the respondent failed to request the necessary funds until the morning of the trial.

The court found the respondent's breaches to be intentional and wilful, and struck his pleadings pursuant to Rule 1(8)(c) of the Family Law Rules.

This is a costs decision arising from two motions in a child protection application.

The Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto sought orders preventing children from attending court and receiving a psychological report.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed both motions.

The court granted the agency's motions.

In the costs decision, the court addressed claims by the mother and the agency.

The mother's costs claims were dismissed.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer was ordered to pay costs to the agency in the amount of $3,850 due to their failure to meet agreed-upon filing deadlines, which caused additional work for the agency.

The applicant child protection agency brought two motions in a protection proceeding involving two children (ages 15 and 12) arising from parental conflict following the death of a sibling and the parents' separation.

The first motion sought an order preventing the children from attending court proceedings.

The second motion sought to prevent the children from receiving a clinical assessment report prepared by a family therapist.

The court granted both motions, finding that attendance at court and access to the report would cause emotional harm to the vulnerable children who were already deeply immersed in the parental conflict and litigation.

The applicant mother sought child support from the respondent, who had donated his sperm through sexual intercourse to help her conceive.

The respondent brought a motion for a declaration of non-parentage, arguing they had a pre-conception oral agreement that he would only be a sperm donor and not a legal parent.

Although the parties signed a written contract confirming this agreement after the child's birth, it did not meet the strict requirement of section 7(4) of the amended Children's Law Reform Act, which requires a written agreement prior to conception.

However, the court utilized section 13 of the Act to grant the declaration of non-parentage, finding that the parties' clear pre-conception intention was for the respondent to be a sperm donor only, and that the child's best interests did not override this intention.

The appellant appealed an order striking his motion to vary, arguing he had insufficient notice and should have been allowed to file materials.

The Court of Appeal dismissed this argument, noting the appellant had ample time and had failed to pay trial costs, a contempt fine, equalization, and failed to comply with disclosure obligations.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to delete a requirement that the appellant prove payment of all support obligations up to January 1, 2014 before bringing a future motion to vary, as the ability to pay is the very subject matter of such a motion.

The appellant mother appealed a custody and access order that granted the respondent father generous access to their children, arguing that the father had attempted to kill her during a vacation in Jamaica.

The trial judge had found the mother's allegations not credible, relying heavily on hearsay evidence from a blood expert who testified at the father's Jamaican criminal trial.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in admitting the hearsay evidence without threshold reliability, demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias through uneven scrutiny of the evidence, and failed to properly assess the best interests of the children, particularly regarding domestic violence.

A new hearing on custody and access was ordered.