Sarah Margaret Boulby

Following a trial and summary judgment motion regarding family law issues, the court determined costs.

The mother sought full indemnity costs of $331,780.36 based on offers to settle, while the self-represented father did not file submissions.

The court found the mother's offers did not trigger full recovery under Rule 18(14) but awarded her partial indemnity costs of $189,191.95 as the successful party, with 75% of the costs enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office as an incident of support.

The parties separated after a 12-year marriage during which they lived in Switzerland.

The mother relocated to Ontario with their two children, one of whom has severe autism.

The father remained in Switzerland, earning a high income subject to lower tax rates.

At trial, the court determined the father's income for support purposes, rejecting his argument for a downward adjustment based on Switzerland's higher cost of living.

The court also refused to impute income to the mother, finding her unemployment was required to care for the children.

The court awarded the mother an equalization payment, retroactive section 7 expenses, a lump sum for retroactive spousal support, and ongoing spousal support of $10,000 per month, adjusting the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines calculations to account for the father's foreign tax advantages.

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.

The applicant father brought a motion for increased parenting time with the parties' 7-year-old child pending a 21-day trial.

The father sought equal time or, alternatively, an additional evening.

A section 30 assessment report raised concerns about the mother's ability to support the child's relationship with the father and noted the child's clear alignment with the mother.

The court found that leaving the status quo in place pending trial would jeopardize the child's relationship with the father.

The court granted the motion in part, awarding the father additional overnights but declining to order equal time on an interim basis.

The applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis following a motion regarding the respondent's failure to make financial disclosure.

The court found that the respondent demonstrated a wilful disregard of his disclosure obligations, necessitating the motion.

The court awarded costs to the applicant on a full indemnity basis, fixing the quantum at $20,000 all-inclusive.

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.

In this family law trial, the court determined issues of property ownership, equalization, and support following a 16-year marriage.

The court found that the shares of a lucrative cellular phone business were held in a bare trust equally for the applicant and respondent, but ascribed zero value to the business for equalization due to unreliable financial records.

The court ordered an equalization payment of $291,820.05 to the applicant, dismissed both parties' claims for unequal division and damages, and ordered the respondent to pay $700,000 in retroactive child and spousal support based on an imputed historical income of $2,000,000.

In the context of a complex family law and related debt action, the parties brought cross-motions to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from questioning.

The corporate respondent was petitioned into bankruptcy shortly before the hearing, triggering an automatic stay.

The court ordered the individual respondents to produce relevant corporate and personal records in their possession, control, or power, finding that the bankruptcy stay did not relieve them of their personal discovery obligations.

The court also ruled on various claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege, ordering the disclosure of legal fee amounts but protecting the identity of counsel and legal advice.

The respondent brought a motion to vary an interim child and spousal support order, arguing that his business income had significantly declined due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that he had 'better information' as contemplated by the original order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the financial information provided by the respondent was incomplete, lacked independent expert corroboration, and did not constitute the 'better information' required to justify varying an interim support order.

The court also declined to adjust section 7 expenses, leaving that issue for the trial judge.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant sought disclosure of various corporate and financial records relating to businesses owned by the respondent and his family.

The court ordered disclosure of corporate financial records back to 2014 for business valuation purposes, as well as post-March 2020 records relevant to a pending motion to reduce support due to the pandemic.

The court also ordered the respondents to request accounting records from their accountants and to produce commercial leases subject to a confidentiality agreement and notice to landlords.

Following a motion for temporary child and spousal support where success was divided, both parties sought costs.

The applicant husband had successfully established a prima facie entitlement to spousal support and obtained a temporary support order, despite the respondent wife's position that no support should be ordered.

The court found the husband was the successful party on the most important issues.

After considering the parties' behaviour, offers to settle, and the proportionality of the fees, the court ordered the respondent to pay costs of $33,000 to the applicant.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a family law arbitration award, arguing the arbitrator erred in law by finding that child support for his son was 'suspended' rather than 'terminated' during a gap year before university.

The applicant claimed that a termination of child support would have triggered a de novo review of spousal support under the parties' divorce order.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator made no error of law and correctly determined that the gap year did not terminate the child support obligation, thereby not triggering the spousal support review.

The applicant husband brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support following the parties' separation.

The respondent wife, a law firm partner, brought a cross-motion seeking a regime where she paid no support but covered all housing and child expenses.

The court imputed the wife's income at $1,076,652 based on her firm's projections, despite Covid-19 uncertainties.

Applying section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines, the court modified the strict set-off amount to account for the wife's significantly higher housing costs.

The court also found the husband established a prima facie needs-based entitlement to temporary spousal support to maintain the family's accustomed lifestyle.

The wife was ordered to pay $6,714.50 monthly in child support and $5,567 monthly in spousal support.

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.

The respondent successfully opposed the confirmation of a provisional variation order made in Nova Scotia.

She sought costs on a full or partial indemnity basis.

The court found the respondent presumptively entitled to costs due to her success and the applicant's conduct.

To afford the out-of-province applicant an opportunity to respond, the court remitted the matter back to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court under section 19(6) of the Divorce Act, granting the applicant 90 days to file written submissions on costs.

The applicant father sought to confirm a Provisional Variation Order from Nova Scotia that varied child support and post-secondary expenses under the Divorce Act.

The respondent mother opposed confirmation, arguing non-compliance with the Divorce Act and disputing the father's evidence regarding the children's residence and her financial contributions.

The court refused to confirm the provisional order, finding that the applicant failed to establish the jurisdictional requirements under section 18(2) of the Divorce Act and failed to prove a material change in circumstances, as the mother had been financially supporting the adult children directly.

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.