Sandra Lozano

The respondent father brought a motion to dismiss the applicant mother's claim for child support as corollary relief under the Divorce Act, arguing she should instead seek to vary an existing Ontario Court of Justice consent order under the Family Law Act.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, holding that it has no discretion to decline jurisdiction over a properly brought Divorce Act application.

Applying the doctrine of paramountcy, the court confirmed that a corollary relief order under the federal Divorce Act supplants and supersedes a prior provincial child support order.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $160,862 following motions for interim child and spousal support.

The court found that while success on the motions was divided, the respondent and co-respondents had behaved unreasonably, justifying a costs award in favour of the applicant.

However, the court found the applicant's claimed costs to be excessive, disproportionate, and manifestly unreasonable, noting the unnecessary duplication of effort by two counsel.

The court reduced the costs award significantly, ordering the respondent to pay $40,500 and the co-respondents to pay $5,000.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support.

The respondent claimed he was laid off and had no income, despite a history of funding a lavish lifestyle through unreported cash from his family's tax-preparation business.

The court found the respondent intentionally under-employed, imputed his income at $209,355, and ordered interim child support of $2,789 per month and spousal support of $2,769 per month.

Claims for retroactive support were deferred to trial.

This endorsement addresses costs following an appeal hearing.

The court found that the respondent (husband) improperly proceeded with a Rule 14B motion, and the applicant (wife) unreasonably appealed a prior order.

Despite both parties seeking costs, the court determined that each party was responsible for their own legal expenses due to their respective unreasonable procedural actions that led to the appeal and its dismissal.

The appellant wife appealed a temporary order from the Ontario Court of Justice that refused to make a final order based on the parties' consent.

The lower court judge had declined to sign the final order due to serious allegations by the respondent husband of duress and fraudulent misrepresentation in obtaining the consent, and the need for the wife to file responding material.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's decision not to sign the final order and its directions for the matter to proceed in the Ontario Court of Justice to determine the consent's validity.

The court also upheld the admission of fresh evidence (email threads) on appeal, applying the R. v. Palmer test, finding it relevant to the service issue.