Ronan Blake

The applicant mother sought a parenting order for the respondent father to care for their adult special needs child on alternate weekends, or for the father to contribute to respite care costs.

The father argued the motion could not proceed until the adult child was heard, relying on J.F.R. v. K.L.L. The court found that a parenting order for an adult child requires a determination of the child's capacity and an opportunity for the child to be heard, as per J.F.R. v. K.L.L., but that a child support order for a Section 7 expense would not necessarily trigger the same requirement.

The motion was adjourned pending a capacity determination for the adult child.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a prior motion where the Applicant was successful.

The Applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis from the date of her offer to settle, totaling $18,558.40.

The Respondent conceded costs but argued the quantum was excessive and that the Applicant's offer, which included a non-severable clause for a disputed loan repayment, was less favorable than the motion's outcome, thus precluding full recovery costs.

The court agreed with the Respondent, finding the offer less favorable due to the disputed loan.

The court also deemed the hours billed excessive for the issues.

Consequently, the Respondent was ordered to pay the Applicant $9,600, representing partial indemnity costs on a reduced quantum of hours.

The respondent, Ms. Soltani, sought full-recovery costs after successfully defending a motion related to the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant, Mr. Rastkar, opposed, arguing divided success and Ms. Soltani's conduct.

The court found Ms. Soltani substantially successful on the primary issues of the motion and determined that Mr. Rastkar's conduct was unreasonable, warranting an elevated costs award.

While Ms. Soltani requested $7,653.49, the court reduced the award to a fixed amount of $5,000 due to concerns about potential duplication of work in her billings, emphasizing proportionality and reasonableness.

The applicant brought a motion for an order regarding the sale of the parties' matrimonial home.

The respondent agreed to the sale but disputed the choice of real estate agent and the request for proceeds to be held in trust.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home with the applicant's preferred real estate agent, Carol Traversy, citing her neutrality and the prior process for selecting agents for other properties.

The court also ordered that the net proceeds of the sale be held in trust pending a final order or agreement, due to the complex financial affairs of the parties and the respondent's lack of timely corporate financial disclosure, which raised concerns about potential equalization payments and child support arrears.

This motion addressed a dispute over the sale of the parties’ matrimonial home.

The Applicant sought to have his purchase offer deemed valid or to have the home listed without the Respondent's involvement, alleging the Respondent obstructed the sale and breached court orders/agreements by refusing his offer and delaying the sale.

The Respondent opposed, arguing the Applicant caused delays and she was entitled to seek fair market value.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion, finding the Respondent did not obstruct the sale or breach orders, and provided a path forward for the sale, including setting a new listing price and allowing both parties to bid.

This is a costs decision following an 8-day trial in a family law proceeding that addressed parenting, relocation, decision-making, spousal support, and child support.

The court applied the principles of costs, including partial indemnification, settlement encouragement, and discouraging inappropriate behaviour, as well as the factors under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules.

Success was divided: the applicant succeeded on parenting and relocation issues, while the respondent succeeded on financial issues, specifically regarding the applicant's attempt to cap the respondent's income.

Neither party's offer to settle met the criteria for full recovery of costs under Rule 18(14).

The court found the parties' positions not unreasonable or in bad faith.

The applicant was awarded partial costs of $30,000 due to their relative success on the parenting and relocation issues, which consumed a significant portion of the trial time.

This was a trial addressing various family law issues following the separation of the parties, including parenting arrangements, child relocation, decision-making authority, child support, and spousal support.

The court denied the respondent's request to relocate the child from Ottawa to Sarnia, finding it not to be in the child's best interests due to the significant disruption and impact on the child's relationship with the applicant and paternal extended family.

The existing shared parenting time schedule was largely maintained.

Decision-making responsibility was ordered to be joint.

For support, the court determined that spousal support was payable indefinitely on both compensatory and non-compensatory bases, with the quantum calculated at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range, and including the applicant's post-separation income increases.

Income was imputed to the respondent at $35,000 annually from 2022.

Child support was ordered based on a set-off of the parties' respective incomes, with no ceiling applied.

An agreed-upon equalization payment was confirmed, and the matrimonial home was ordered to be sold.

The father brought a motion for an interim order to reinstate parenting time with his 11-year-old daughter, claiming the mother had alienated the child and unilaterally withheld access.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing the father's aggressive conduct and failure to abide by previous orders necessitated supervised reunification counselling.

The court found that the father was largely responsible for the breakdown in the relationship and his lack of parenting time.

Applying the best interests of the child factors under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court suspended the father's parenting time until he successfully engages in reunification counselling with a new counsellor at his own expense.

In additional reasons following a motion, the court determined the quantum of interim child and spousal support and the distribution of proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court declined to find that the eldest child resided primarily with the applicant due to conflicting evidence, deferring the issue to trial.

Interim spousal support was ordered at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

To address dissipation concerns, the court ordered 25% of the respondent's share of the home sale proceeds to be held in trust.

The applicant mother brought a motion to set aside a previous order granting her temporary sole custody and to establish primary residence and school enrollment for the parties' four-year-old child.

The respondent father sought interim equal timesharing and for the child to remain at his current school.

The court set aside the previous order, finding that the status quo prior to the mother unilaterally terminating access was an equal timesharing arrangement.

The court ordered temporary joint custody and equal timesharing, and directed that the child remain at his current school to minimize disruption.

The issue of child support was adjourned.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking the return of the parties' 11-year-old child to her primary care and an order that the child attend school in-person.

The respondent father, who had temporarily assumed primary care at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, brought a cross-motion seeking primary residence and an order for virtual schooling, citing his and his partner's diabetes as risk factors.

The court found that the father had engaged in self-help by refusing to return the child.

Applying recent jurisprudence on COVID-19 school attendance, the court held that the benefits of in-person schooling for the child, who has learning disabilities and an Individual Education Plan, outweighed the unquantified health risks to the father's household.

The mother's motion was granted.