Rodney Brian Cross

The respondent brought a motion for security for costs and other relief, which the applicant sought to dismiss.

The court reviewed the factors under Family Law Rule 24(13), noting the applicant resides outside Ontario.

However, the court found no clear evidence that the applicant's underlying application was a nuisance or that the applicant lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs, especially given consistent enforcement of existing orders by the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) and Nova Scotia Maintenance Enforcement Program (MEP).

The motion for security for costs was dismissed, and the applicant was awarded costs of the motion.

This case involved a trial of parenting issues between separated parents.

The father sought equal residential parenting time and sole decision-making, while the mother sought to maintain the existing alternating weekend arrangement and sole decision-making.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer represented the children.

The court considered the children's best interests under the Divorce Act, noting the mother's emotional struggles and influence on the children's views.

The court ordered an equal residential schedule (2:2:5:5 rotation) and split decision-making authority, with the father having authority over health care and other matters, and the mother over education.

Following a decision staying the applicant's application pending payment of arrears, the court determined the issue of costs.

The respondent was successful in obtaining the stay and was presumptively entitled to costs.

However, because success was divided on the issues raised during the motion, the court apportioned costs and ordered the applicant to pay $4,500 to the respondent.

The respondent mother brought a motion to stay the applicant father's divorce and parenting application until he paid outstanding costs orders and transferred funds from his RRSP to satisfy child support arrears, as required by a 2014 court order.

The court found that while the father had complied with the monthly payment order, he had failed to obey the order requiring him to apply RRSP withdrawals to his arrears, having used the 2015 and 2016 withdrawals for his own purposes.

Applying Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court granted the motion and stayed the father's application pending his payment of $18,092.11, representing the RRSP funds he failed to transfer.

The mother sought partial indemnity costs following a successful motion for retroactive and ongoing child support and financial disclosure.

The father argued for divided success because the issue of spousal support was adjourned to trial.

The court found the mother was substantially successful and presumptively entitled to costs.

The court awarded the mother costs fixed at $4,124.10 on a partial indemnity basis, noting the father's unreasonable settlement offers and the reasonableness of the mother's legal fees.

In an addendum to a judgment on a motion to change, the court determined the exact quantum of a child support overpayment and addressed costs.

The court found the father overpaid $6,168.20 but reduced the repayment obligation to $1,500 due to the mother's financial hardship and the father's blameworthy conduct in failing to provide financial disclosure.

Despite the father's success on the child support issue, the court declined to award costs to either party, citing the father's bad faith non-disclosure.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim child and spousal support retroactive to September 2021, as well as financial disclosure.

The respondent father argued that the mother was intentionally underemployed, that one of the children was in a shared parenting arrangement, and that he had been paying support and other expenses.

The court found that the two youngest children resided primarily with the mother and ordered the father to pay retroactive and ongoing interim child support based on his 2020 income.

The issues of spousal support, imputation of income, and occupation rent were deferred to trial.

The court also ordered the father to provide the requested financial disclosure and granted the father's request for an appraisal of the matrimonial home and pension valuations.

On a motion to change, the court addressed both parenting and support after a lengthy estrangement between the child and the father following the father's catastrophic brain injury.

Applying the variation and best-interests framework under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court accepted an assessment recommending that any relationship rebuilding proceed cautiously and only at the child’s discretion, supported by periodic child-appropriate videos reviewed with a mental health professional.

On child support, the court held that the original order was not under appeal, but the father's regained financial competency in 2016 and subsequent non-disclosure constituted a material change and blameworthy conduct justifying retroactive variation from June 1, 2016.

The court rejected including the full structured settlement as income, instead attributing 3.2% of it as income replacement, grossed up, together with SABS, CPP, rental income and modest imputed investment income, and directed further calculations to quantify arrears.

The court also modified the section 7 regime and ordered support security through estate charge, insurance inquiries, and an irrevocable direction respecting the guaranteed portion of the structured settlement.

The applicant mother brought a motion for a temporary order for sole decision-making authority, primary residence, and supervised exchanges, implementing the gradual parenting time increases recommended by a jointly retained assessor.

The respondent father opposed, seeking an immediate increase in parenting time and arguing against implementing an untested assessment before trial.

The court granted the mother's motion, finding that the jurisprudence has evolved to allow consideration of assessment reports on a motion where it provides probative evidence and is in the child's best interests.

The court ordered temporary sole decision-making to the mother with parameters, supervised exchanges, and gradual increases to the father's parenting time.

This appeal concerned the valuation of federally regulated pensions for equalization purposes in family law, specifically addressing the determination of the "normal retirement date." The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by using case-specific intentions for retirement dates instead of applying the functional meaning of "normal retirement date" as defined under the provincial Pension Benefits Act (PBA) scheme, which represents the age at which any member is entitled to unreduced pension benefits (age 60 for these parties under the Public Service Superannuation Act).

The court emphasized that the provincial valuation methodology should be applied to federal pensions with only "necessary modifications." The appeal was allowed in part, remitting the matter for recalculation of the equalization payment based on the corrected normal retirement date.

Other grounds of appeal regarding survivor benefits, contingent survivor benefits, date of marriage deductions, notional disposition costs, and the method of equalization payment were dismissed.

The parties executed Minutes of Settlement to resolve parenting and child support issues through mediation/arbitration.

The respondent subsequently refused to pay the arbitration retainer or attend mandatory domestic violence and power imbalance screening, arguing the arbitration agreement was invalid.

The applicant brought a motion to compel the respondent to proceed.

The court granted the motion, finding the respondent was bound by the Minutes of Settlement to take the necessary steps to implement the agreement, including attending the required screening.

This endorsement determines costs following a motion to change parenting terms.

Both the applicant and respondent sought costs, each claiming greater success.

The court found that success was divided, as neither party achieved all the relief they sought.

The respondent's offers to settle did not entitle her to costs under Rule 18(14) because the outcome was not more favourable than her offers, and the offers included unassessed child support issues.

The court also found that neither party's conduct was unreasonable enough to warrant a sanction of costs.

Consequently, no order for costs was made for the motion.

Following a family law trial where the applicant mother was granted sole custody and permitted to move to Montreal, the court determined the issue of costs.

The mother sought up to $170,284.90, while the father argued for a reduction due to divided success and the mother's conduct.

The court found the mother was successful on the major issues of custody and mobility, but noted she was unsuccessful on significant financial claims.

Applying the Family Law Rules and considering the divided success, the parties' behavior, and the nature of mobility cases, the court ordered the father to pay costs of $40,000.

In a high-conflict family law trial, the mother sought sole custody and permission to relocate with the parties' two young children to Montreal to take over her family's business.

The father sought joint custody and opposed the move.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding that the parties' poor communication and high conflict precluded joint custody, and permitted the move to Montreal as being in the children's best interests.

The father was granted a graduated access schedule that increased his parenting time to alternate weekends with overnights.

The court also ordered ongoing child support and a $10,000 lump sum for retroactive spousal support, but dismissed the mother's claims for retroactive section 7 expenses and a $60,000 business contribution due to insufficient evidence.

The parties sought to vary an existing parenting order concerning their ten-year-old child.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the child's age, special needs, and preferences, as well as changes in transfer logistics.

The court adjusted the regular access schedule to remove school-night overnights and replace them with a Friday afternoon visit, and modified the summer access to three four-day periods plus one weekend.

Prescribed telephone call times were removed, replaced by child-initiated communication, with the respondent responsible for facilitating communication during long access gaps.

Transfer locations were changed from police stations to a neutral public location, with school pick-ups for Friday access.

The applicant was ordered to sign passport applications and both parties to use "Our Family Wizard" for communication.

Child support issues were adjourned pending financial disclosure.

The respondent's requests for a further life insurance order and a restraining order were dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking the resumption of access with his 12-year-old son, which had been temporarily suspended by a prior order pending therapeutic services.

The child exhibited severe trauma and strongly opposed contact with the father.

The court dismissed the motion for interim supervised access, finding it could cause significant emotional distress and undermine the ongoing reunification therapy process, but ordered increased frequency of the child's counselling sessions.

The applicant brought a motion to change parenting time, which resulted in the children residing primarily with him.

In these supplementary reasons, the court determined whether the respondent's parenting time met the 40% threshold under section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines to justify a set-off of child support.

The court applied an hourly calculation and found the respondent's time fell short of the required 3,504 hours per year.

Consequently, the respondent was ordered to pay full table child support.

The applicant father sought sole custody and primary residence of his two children, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent mother also sought sole custody and primary residence, and the sale of the home.

The court found the mother to be the primary caregiver pre-separation and post-separation, despite significant conflict and intrusive monitoring by the father and his parents.

The court granted the mother sole custody and primary residence during the school year, with shared summers and holidays.

The matrimonial home was ordered to be sold, with proceeds divided after accounting for child support arrears and Canada Child Tax Benefit credits.

The father sought immediate reinstatement of access to his 12-year-old son and therapeutic orders compelling the family to engage in counselling.

The mother opposed mandatory counselling and argued access was detrimental.

The court found jurisdiction to make therapeutic orders, concluding they were not "treatment" under the Health Care Consent Act requiring consent, as they posed little to no risk of harm and were aimed at improving family relationships.

The court temporarily suspended the father's access, ordered individual and joint counselling for both parents and the child, and mandated judicial oversight, emphasizing that an integrated therapeutic intervention was essential for the child's best interests and to rebuild the father-son relationship.

The child was to remain in the mother's primary care.

The applicant father brought a motion to change the nesting arrangement for the parties' two children, seeking primary residence with him.

The respondent mother sought primary residence with her.

The court determined that a material change of circumstances had occurred, necessitating a fresh inquiry into the children's best interests under the framework of *Gordon v. Goertz*.

The court considered the children's views, as reported by the Office of the Children's Lawyer, but found them to be ambivalent and not well-informed, thus placing little weight on them.

Emphasizing the importance of stability and minimizing disruption, the court found it was in the children's best interests to remain living with their father in Ottawa, as they had always done.

The previous Divorce Order was varied to reflect the father as having primary residence, with the mother having parenting time three weekends out of four during the school year and shared holidays.

Child support and costs were reserved for further submissions.