Sarah Margaret Boulby

The Father brought a motion to expand his parenting time with his 18-month-old son, MJ, from supervised twice-weekly visits to a graduated schedule leading to unsupervised overnight parenting time.

The Mother brought a cross-motion for a section 30 assessment or Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) referral, and to maintain supervised parenting time with only a slight increase in frequency.

The court dismissed the Mother's request for an assessment/OCL referral, finding no compelling clinical issues and that the Mother's concerns were largely unsubstantiated.

The court granted the Father's motion for a graduated expansion of parenting time, transitioning from supervised to unsupervised, finding it to be in the child's best interests to foster a meaningful relationship with both parents and that the Mother's restrictive approach was unfounded.

This endorsement addresses two motions brought under Family Law Rule 25(19) to correct errors in a prior judgment.

The Applicant's motion sought to correct a misapprehension of evidence regarding a shared debt's quantum, which the court granted, adjusting the amount from $325,000 to $650,000.

The Respondent Imran Khan's motion sought to reduce a retroactive spousal support lump sum award by considering income tax consequences.

The court dismissed this motion, ruling that FLR 25(19)(b) and (c) do not provide jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions or errors of law, only typographical or mathematical errors, or matters not previously decided.

The Applicant and Respondent Imran Khan, separated spouses, were in litigation regarding the sale of a beneficially owned property titled in the names of Imran's parents (Zarinataj and Ishaq Khan).

The Respondents brought a motion to compel the sale of the property at an accepted offer price, which the Applicant opposed, arguing the price was too low.

The court addressed the urgency of the motion, the admissibility of a "without prejudice" settlement letter, and whether the motion should be heard despite Imran Khan's arrears in support payments.

The court found the matter urgent due to lost opportunity and ongoing expenses, ruled the settlement letter inadmissible due to settlement privilege, and allowed the motion to proceed despite arrears, citing the Applicant's dilatory conduct and the interests of the other Respondents.

The court ordered the property to be sold at the accepted offer, with a condition allowing the Applicant to litigate the reasonableness of the sale price at trial, and directed that any support arrears be paid from Imran Khan's share of the proceeds.

The court also recommended the appointment of a case management judge due to the contentious and complex nature of the case.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a previous decision where the court refused to confirm a Provisional Variation Order.

The respondent, who successfully opposed the variation, sought costs.

The applicant failed to submit any arguments regarding costs despite being given an opportunity.

The court determined costs based on the respondent's submissions, awarding them on a partial indemnity basis, finding that full indemnity was not warranted.

The total costs awarded to the respondent were $16,964.21, inclusive of legal fees and disbursements.

The applicant husband sought to stay the child and spousal support provisions of an arbitration award pending leave to appeal.

The respondent wife opposed the stay.

The court applied the three-part RJR-MacDonald test, finding that while a serious issue for appeal existed, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favored a stay.

The court emphasized the arbitrator's findings of the applicant's financial non-disclosure and the "no automatic stay" policy for support orders.

The motion to stay was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of a motion to change a custody and access order.

The father sought to modify a December 2016 consent order by requesting equal parenting time, a change to the child's school, and child support.

The mother successfully defended the motion and sought costs of $23,000.

The father proposed costs be fixed at $5,000.

The court awarded costs of $15,344.36, payable in monthly installments, finding that the father should have accepted the mother's settlement offer which was more favourable than the final result.

The court considered the father's financial circumstances, the straightforward nature of the matter, and the proportionality of costs in fixing the award.

The father of a six-year-old child sought the child's return to Texas pursuant to the Hague Convention on the International Return of Children and also sought to dismiss the mother's Ontario divorce application for lack of jurisdiction.

The application judge allowed both applications.

The mother appealed, challenging the findings on habitual residence, acquiescence, and intolerable situation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's determination that the child's habitual residence was in Texas, that the mother had not established acquiescence or an intolerable situation, and that Ontario lacked jurisdiction over the divorce application.

The maternal grandparents sought temporary custody of their three-year-old grandson following concerns about the mother's mental health and substance abuse issues.

The mother opposed the custody order and sought to set it aside, requesting temporary custody of the child herself.

The father supported the mother's position but sought joint custody.

The court dismissed the mother's motion to set aside the temporary custody order and her request for temporary custody, finding that while the mother had made positive developments since the initial ex parte order, concerns about her mental health and ongoing substance use remained unresolved.

The court expanded parental access, granted the grandparents permission to travel with the child to Florida, and ordered interim disbursements to fund the mother's legal representation.

Following an unsuccessful jurisdictional motion brought by certain respondents seeking dismissal of part of a claim, the court addressed costs.

The motion was dismissed and another respondent was entirely successful.

Applying the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including proportionality and the reasonable expectations of the parties, the court fixed costs in favour of the successful party.

Costs were awarded inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The applicant sought costs after the respondent withdrew her answer in a family law application concerning the validity of a separation agreement and referral of child support issues to mediation/arbitration.

The applicant argued that under rule 12(3) of the Family Law Rules he was entitled to near full recovery of legal fees exceeding $22,000.

The court held that rule 12(3) entitles a party to costs thrown away by a withdrawal but does not automatically require full indemnity recovery.

Considering proportionality, the limited procedural steps taken, and the absence of unreasonable conduct, the court fixed costs at a reduced all‑inclusive amount.

Payment of the costs award was deferred until specified milestones relating to the mediation/arbitration of the child support dispute.

Costs decision following a family law motion seeking to compel disclosure and other relief relating to financial statements and property issues potentially involving third parties.

The court found the moving party’s motion to compel disclosure was largely premature, unnecessary, and overreaching because disclosure timelines had not been fixed, pleadings were incomplete, and some disclosure required cooperation from non-parties.

The court also noted the moving party accepted the responding party’s valuation date during the motion.

Finding that the responding party attempted to avoid the motion and was the successful party, the court awarded partial indemnity costs.