Ryan G. Gillissie

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final custody and access order made by Justice Cohen in 2016, seeking to expand her access to include Monday evenings for Hebrew school.

The respondent father opposed the motion, arguing there was no material change in circumstances.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding the father's willingness to accommodate the child's Jewish identity and heritage, as he had unilaterally withdrawn consent for Hebrew school attendance after approximately two years of voluntary agreement.

The court granted a temporary order permitting the mother to continue taking the child to Hebrew school on Monday evenings pending a full investigation by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

This endorsement addresses a costs motion following an unsuccessful motion by Ms. Cannone-Haddad to strike Mr. Haddad's pleadings or for security for costs.

Mr. Haddad, the successful party, sought $16,861.86 in costs on a full recovery basis.

Ms. Cannone-Haddad argued for no costs or an offset against child support arrears.

The court, applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, acknowledged Mr. Haddad's entitlement to costs but found the requested amount excessive and not warranting full recovery.

Considering the parties' financial difficulties, Mr. Haddad's child support arrears, and the necessity of Ms. Cannone-Haddad's initial motion to compel disclosure, the court awarded Mr. Haddad $5,000 in costs, payable after the resolution of outstanding issues.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings in his motion to change child support, or alternatively, for security for costs.

The applicant alleged the respondent failed to provide adequate financial disclosure and owed significant support arrears.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the respondent had produced sufficient disclosure to proceed to trial and that triable issues existed.

The court also dismissed the request for security for costs, noting it would be extraordinary to order security against a party seeking relief due to an inability to pay support.

The applicant mother was entirely successful on her motion for summary judgment for child support.

She sought costs on a full recovery basis.

The respondent father, who was self-represented, argued no costs should be awarded because the mother was supported by Legal Aid and he was a victim of 'DNA theft'.

The court rejected the father's arguments, noting that legally aided parties are entitled to costs.

However, the court declined to award full recovery costs because the mother failed to serve an offer to settle.

Costs were fixed at $4,000.

A mother brought a motion for summary judgment seeking child support, section 7 expenses, and related orders against the father of her child.

The father opposed the motion, arguing that he should not be legally obligated to pay child support because the mother engaged in a "premeditated theft of the father's DNA" during a "hostile sexual act of DNA theft." The father also sought a restraining order against the mother for alleged stalking.

The court dismissed the father's defence to child support as having no legal basis, imputed income to the father based on his intentional underemployment, and dismissed the restraining order application.

The court granted the mother's motion on all substantive issues.

A child protection society brought a summary judgment motion in a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act.

The child had been found in need of protection due to parental substance abuse.

The society sought an order placing the child in the sole custody of the father, with access to the mother.

The mother opposed the motion and sought joint or parallel parenting arrangements, arguing she should participate in major decisions regarding the child's education and religious upbringing.

The court granted summary judgment to the society, finding no genuine issue requiring trial on the question of sole custody to the father.

The court found the father had provided stable, appropriate care, while the mother's recovery was recent and there was no history of effective co-parenting or communication between the parties.

Following the breakdown of a long-term common law relationship involving two children, the applicant sought child support, spousal support, and compensation for unjust enrichment based on a joint family venture.

The respondent argued the parties had separated in 1997 pursuant to a separation agreement, while the applicant asserted the relationship continued until 2011.

The court found the parties remained in a common law relationship until June 21, 2011, and determined that the applicant had established unjust enrichment arising from her domestic and caregiving contributions that enabled the respondent’s financial advancement.

Applying the joint family venture framework from Kerr v. Baranow, the court concluded the respondent retained a disproportionate share of assets accumulated during the relationship.

The applicant was awarded a monetary remedy of $125,000 and ongoing spousal support calculated under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Following an adjourned family trial, the court addressed costs thrown away resulting from the respondent’s failure to provide court-ordered financial disclosure.

The court held that significant preparation and trial time had been wasted because disclosure remained incomplete despite prior orders.

After reviewing the applicant’s bill of costs, the court fixed compensable preparation and trial time related to disclosure issues at 43 hours and awarded fees and disbursements.

The court emphasized the importance of compliance with disclosure obligations and professional conduct expectations for counsel.

Costs were ordered payable by the respondent and the non‑dissipation order was varied to permit refinancing of property to fund payment.

During an ongoing family law trial involving property and financial claims, the court addressed significant disclosure failures by the respondent, which resulted in missing financial documents and inaccurate disclosure affidavits.

The court determined that the trial was not ready to proceed due to incomplete documentary production and ordered the trial adjourned to allow proper review and further disclosure.

Multiple procedural orders were made requiring both parties to identify and produce outstanding documents and to exchange sworn affidavits of documents.

The court also ordered costs thrown away to the applicant caused by the disclosure failures.

In addition, the court granted the applicant interim relief by directing the release of $40,000 from funds held in trust from the sale of the matrimonial home toward an admitted equalization entitlement.