Ronald Frank Adams

The applicant was the successful party in a motion/trial of an issue to determine the date of separation.

The applicant sought costs of $14,245, while the respondent suggested an award of $3,500 to $4,000.

The court found the applicant's claimed hours to be excessive and disproportionate to the single issue before the court.

Applying the factors in Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, the court fixed costs at $5,000 all inclusive, payable by the respondent.

This endorsement addresses a dispute over the date of separation for the purposes of the Family Law Act, which directly impacted the applicant wife's claim for equalization of net family property.

The applicant argued for an April 2014 separation date, while the respondent husband claimed January 2012, which would have rendered the equalization claim statute-barred.

The court meticulously reviewed documentary evidence and corroborating affidavits, including income tax returns, CPP correspondence, matrimonial home arrangements, social activities, and bill payments.

The respondent's assertion of a confidential separation agreement was found incredible due to a lack of supporting evidence.

The court ultimately concluded that the date of separation was April 2014, consistent with the applicant's position.

In a child protection status review application, the Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a custody order placing two children with the maternal grandfather and his life partner under s. 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, together with continued supervised access for the mother and maternal grandmother.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, relying on the existing evidentiary record, prior findings, and evidence that the children had thrived in the proposed placement.

The court found the children were no longer in need of protection in that placement and that permanency and stability favoured a final order.

Access remained meaningful and beneficial, but supervision by the Society was continued in the children's best interests.