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.

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.

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.

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 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.

The court rendered a costs endorsement following a motion regarding child support.

Both the father and mother sought costs, claiming divided success.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle and considered factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, including the importance and complexity of issues, reasonableness of behaviour, lawyers' rates, time spent, and expenses.

The court found divided success and that neither party's offer was as favourable as or more favourable than the final award.

Consequently, no costs were ordered.

The respondent mother sought to change a child support agreement, including a sharing of post-secondary expenses and proof of a life insurance policy.

The applicant father objected, citing unemployment and seeking a retroactive adjustment.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to income changes and a child attending university.

The court imputed income to the father, finding his decision to leave his lucrative employment in Vietnam without securing new full-time work in England unreasonable, thereby prioritizing his own interests over his children's support needs.

Child support was adjusted retroactively based on the imputed income, and the father was ordered to contribute to post-secondary expenses and provide proof of an irrevocable life insurance designation.

Following an earlier costs decision directing the respondent to file a proper Bill of Costs, the court considered the respondent’s revised submission.

The submission included extensive additional materials beyond the requested Bill of Costs, which the court declined to consider.

The court found the claimed full indemnity costs of over $52,000 excessive relative to the proportionality of the dispute, which concerned whether $125,000 should be shared between the parties.

After accepting disbursements but rejecting certain fee claims and finding the hours excessive, the court determined reasonable full indemnity costs to be $25,000 and fixed partial indemnity costs accordingly.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $16,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following a family law trial concerning property division and equalization, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The principal dispute at trial concerned whether the respondent’s cottage constituted a matrimonial home for purposes of calculating Net Family Property.

The court found that the applicant had advanced an unfair claim regarding the cottage which significantly prolonged the litigation.

Although neither party beat their formal settlement offers, the court determined that the respondent was the successful party and entitled to costs.

However, the court declined to assess the amount due to inadequate cost submissions and directed the respondent to file a proper bill of costs.

The Bank of Montreal and the bankruptcy trustee for a respondent moved to rescind part of a prior consent order obtained in family proceedings concerning the distribution of proceeds from the sale of a matrimonial home.

The impugned paragraph authorized payment of funds held in court to the applicant and characterized the payment as child support, despite the respondent being an undischarged bankrupt and the funds having vested in the bankruptcy trustee.

The earlier consent order had been obtained without notice to the trustee and contrary to a prior court order requiring that any claim to the bankrupt’s share be pursued through a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding.

The court held the consent provision invalid and rescinded it, ordered the remaining funds subject to a stop order paid to the Bank of Montreal pursuant to its execution, and held the applicant jointly and severally liable with the bankrupt respondent to the trustee for the portion previously received.

Costs were awarded to the bank and trustee.

Following the breakdown of a long marriage, the applicant sought equalization of property, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, child support, damages for spousal assault, and a restraining order.

The respondent sought equalization, sale of property, spousal support, and contested the valuation date and other financial issues.

The court determined the valuation date to be September 1, 2007 under s. 4 of the Family Law Act and found the parties continued financial cooperation after separation did not amount to reconciliation.

The court ordered the sale of jointly owned real property and the family business with proceeds divided subject to adjustments including unpaid corporate dividends, a septic repair contribution, equalization payment, and retroactive child-related expenses.

The respondent’s claim for spousal support was dismissed and damages for historical spousal assault were awarded in the modest amount of $1,000.

Requests for exclusive possession and a restraining order were denied.