Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The parties were unable to resolve the issue of costs following a motion to consolidate family and civil proceedings brought by the moving parties.

The responding party, who was successful on the motion, sought partial indemnity costs of $12,770.74.

The moving parties argued they should pay no costs due to an outstanding costs order, or alternatively, no more than $1,500.

The court rejected the moving parties' arguments regarding the outstanding costs order and their financial struggles, but found the responding party's claimed hours disproportionate.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court fixed costs payable to the responding party at $8,500 inclusive.

The child protection agency brought a motion within a status review proceeding to change the temporary placement of an Indigenous child from the father's care to the mother's care pending trial.

The mother supported the motion, citing her progress in substance abuse recovery, while the father opposed it, arguing the child had stability in his care and the mother's progress needed to be tested at trial.

The court applied a flexible approach to varying a supervision order and determined that the father had provided stability for over two years.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence regarding the mother's recovery and the child's best interests required a full trial.

The Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County brought a motion for a temporary care and custody order for three First Nation children.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm if returned to the mother without supervision, due to her history of substance abuse, mental health issues, and domestic violence.

Applying the "least disruptive placement" principle under the CYFSA and considering the children's First Nations heritage under the federal Act, the court ordered the children to be placed in the temporary care and custody of their parents, subject to the Society's supervision and specific conditions.

The order also granted unsupervised access to the father of the youngest child.

The moving party's counsel brought an uncontested motion to have the moving party declared a 'special party' under the Family Law Rules and to appoint the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (OPGT) as his litigation guardian.

Medical and capacity assessments demonstrated that the moving party suffered from severe cognitive impairments and was incapable of instructing counsel.

The court found the moving party to be a special party and, noting the absence of any other appropriate representative, appointed the OPGT to represent him in the ongoing family law proceedings.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's Answer and vest the matrimonial home in her name due to the respondent's persistent non-compliance with multiple court orders.

The respondent had previously been found in contempt, jailed for 30 days, and claimed to have burned over $1 million in cash to avoid paying the applicant.

The court found the respondent's conduct egregious and struck his Answer regarding financial issues, allowing the applicant to proceed to an uncontested trial on those matters.

The court also granted a vesting order transferring the matrimonial home to the applicant to secure her interests against the respondent's anticipated future non-compliance.

The respondent mother brought a motion to stay the applicant father's divorce and parenting application until he paid outstanding costs orders and transferred funds from his RRSP to satisfy child support arrears, as required by a 2014 court order.

The court found that while the father had complied with the monthly payment order, he had failed to obey the order requiring him to apply RRSP withdrawals to his arrears, having used the 2015 and 2016 withdrawals for his own purposes.

Applying Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court granted the motion and stayed the father's application pending his payment of $18,092.11, representing the RRSP funds he failed to transfer.

In an uncontested trial following the striking of the respondent's pleadings, the applicant sought sole decision-making responsibility, parenting time orders, and child support for their three-year-old child.

The court found a history of family violence and that the respondent had minimal involvement in the child's life.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making responsibility, the right to travel without consent, and ordered the respondent to pay ongoing and retroactive child support based on an imputed annual income of $43,750.

The parties attended a Trial Management Conference for a motion to change a U.S. parenting and child support order.

The court found the parties were unprepared for trial, having failed to confer, prepare a joint Trial Scheduling Endorsement Form, or address significant jurisdictional issues regarding the adult disabled child and the foreign divorce.

The court ordered a further TMC and directed the parties to exchange will-say statements, requests to admit, and research on jurisdiction.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for extended society care without access for two children who had been in care for 27 months.

The mother sought the return of the children or joint care with the maternal grandmother.

The court first determined that the children were First Nations but had no identified band.

The court found the children continued to be in need of protection due to the mother's transience, untreated mental health issues, and high-conflict behaviour.

Concluding that no less disruptive alternatives were viable, the court ordered extended society care.

Access was denied as it was not in the children's best interests and would likely impair adoption opportunities.

Following a six-day family law trial where the applicant was largely successful, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant had submitted two offers to settle and achieved a trial result greater than proposed in her offers.

The court found the respondent's conduct during the proceedings to be unreasonable, noting his failure to abide by pre-trial orders and his presentation of unreliable evidence.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs up to the date of her first offer and full recovery of fees thereafter, totaling $65,881.35, to be partially satisfied from trust funds.

The father brought a motion to change a final consent order, seeking equal time-sharing, parallel parenting, and decision-making authority over the children's education and health.

He alleged the mother failed to consult with him and that his employment changes constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no material change in circumstances.

The court noted the high level of conflict between the parents and held that joint custody or parallel parenting would not be in the children's best interests.

The mother's proposal to slightly increase the father's parenting time was incorporated into the final order.

In a child protection proceeding under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the court considered whether a father’s access to his four children should remain supervised.

Evidence established that the children enjoyed visits with their father, but his untreated delusional disorder raised concerns about risk and judgment.

The treating psychiatrist recommended continued supervision due to the father’s fixed delusional beliefs and uncertainty regarding treatment compliance.

The court concluded that unsupervised access was not presently safe and rejected a proposal to shift supervision responsibilities to a third‑party organization.

The court ordered continued supervised Sunday access by the society, cancelled mid‑week visits due to their burden on the children, and directed that future reconsideration of access depend on psychiatric treatment progress.

Following a motion determining that a child was habitually resident in Quebec and that Ontario lacked jurisdiction over custody and access, the court addressed costs.

The successful party sought costs on either a partial or substantial indemnity basis under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court applied the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs and considered the factors in Rule 24(11), including complexity, conduct of the parties, and time spent.

Finding the issue required court intervention but involved no unreasonable behaviour, the court awarded modest partial indemnity costs.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for interim spousal support prior to a case conference following the breakdown of a short marriage with no children.

The court considered the parties’ financial circumstances, including the respondent’s pension income, RRSP assets, and tax‑free municipal income, as well as the applicant’s recent back surgery and limited current employment prospects.

The respondent argued that his income was modest and that RRSP withdrawals funded much of the parties’ lifestyle during the marriage.

The court found deficiencies in the respondent’s financial disclosure and drew an adverse inference regarding omitted tax‑free income.

On an interim, interim basis, the court ordered spousal support to permit the applicant to meet living expenses and transition to employment and alternate accommodation.

Following a motion concerning temporary child and spousal support, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant sought full recovery costs of $17,283 after obtaining support orders exceeding her prior offers to settle.

The respondent argued each party should bear their own costs or that any award should be substantially reduced, asserting that the claimed fees were excessive and noting the applicant’s tax deductibility of legal fees.

The court found the applicant presumptively entitled to costs but declined to award substantial indemnity costs.

After adjusting the claimed amount and considering tax deductibility under the Courts of Justice Act, the court fixed costs at $14,000 and reduced them by the applicant’s marginal tax rate.

In a family law proceeding, the court issued a supplementary endorsement confirming scheduling directions previously provided.

The trial was ordered to proceed for seven days commencing the week of November 12, 2013.

The court directed that failure by either party to obtain and deliver specified expert reports would not result in vacating the scheduled trial date.

The parties were permitted to consider amending pleadings and undertaking disclosure relating to child support and equalization, but the court emphasized that adding issues must not delay the scheduled trial.

Following a motion for temporary child and spousal support, the court addressed the outstanding issue of costs.

The moving party had been successful on the earlier motion, which determined the responding party’s income and ordered support accordingly.

The court found that settlement had been hindered by the responding party’s lack of disclosure.

While the successful party sought over $51,000 in costs on a full indemnity basis, the court concluded that full indemnity was not justified and fixed costs at $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

Following an earlier costs decision directing the respondent to file a proper Bill of Costs, the court considered the respondent’s revised submission.

The submission included extensive additional materials beyond the requested Bill of Costs, which the court declined to consider.

The court found the claimed full indemnity costs of over $52,000 excessive relative to the proportionality of the dispute, which concerned whether $125,000 should be shared between the parties.

After accepting disbursements but rejecting certain fee claims and finding the hours excessive, the court determined reasonable full indemnity costs to be $25,000 and fixed partial indemnity costs accordingly.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $16,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

In a family proceeding concerning custody and access to a cognitively impaired adult child, the court supervised the implementation of a prior trial judgment governing residence and access arrangements.

During the supervision process, court-appointed counsel for the child brought a motion seeking removal and replacement after the child retained different counsel and refused to continue working with existing counsel and a social worker.

The court considered the child’s wishes, the issuance of a legal aid certificate, and the ability of new counsel to fulfil the responsibilities required by the earlier judgment.

Finding it impractical for the existing representatives to continue in their roles, the court granted the motion and appointed replacement counsel.

Additional directions were provided to support the implementation of access and communication between the parents.

The moving party brought a motion to change a prior support order seeking termination of child support for two adult children, retroactive termination of spousal support, and credit for alleged overpayment.

The court reviewed the parties’ financial evidence, recalculated child support obligations under the Federal Child Support Guidelines, and determined that both children ceased to be dependants after completing high school.

Child support obligations were terminated retroactively for each child at the end of their respective schooling periods, resulting in a reduction of arrears.

Spousal support entitlement was not revisited, but the court terminated ongoing spousal support as of the date the motion was commenced and recalculated arrears using the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court fixed the remaining arrears and directed issuance of a support deduction order.