Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The applicant father sought increased parenting time with his two children after their return to Ottawa from a four-year posting in Miami with the respondent mother.

The mother opposed a 50/50 shared parenting arrangement, citing the children's reluctance due to the father's home distance from school and unfamiliarity with a school routine there.

The court, applying the best interests of the child factors under the Divorce Act, found it was in the children's best interests to have increased parenting time with the father.

A temporary order was made for the father's parenting time to be from Wednesday after school to Sunday evening every alternate week, with a view towards a future shared parenting schedule.

The father was deemed the successful party and presumptively entitled to costs.

The Applicants (grandparents) brought a motion to enforce an interim contact order for their two grandchildren, alleging the Respondent mother had failed to comply with the previous order.

The court denied the Respondent's adjournment request, deeming it a delay tactic contrary to the children's best interests.

The court found the Respondent was actively preventing contact and influencing the children against their grandparents.

The motion for enforcement was granted, with the court ordering a new, detailed contact schedule, involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, and a police enforcement clause as a last resort.

Costs were awarded to the Applicants.

This endorsement addresses the respondent mother's request for costs following a three-day trial on parenting issues, where she was deemed the successful party, and for a subsequent court appearance necessitated by the applicant father's counsel's lack of communication regarding child support.

The court found the father's conduct prior to and during the litigation, including late filings and failure to communicate on child support, to be unreasonable and in bad faith.

Considering the mother's more favorable offer to settle and the father's conduct, the court awarded the mother substantial costs for the trial and full recovery costs for the June 20th appearance, while also considering the father's ability to pay.

Following a family law trial regarding property division and spousal support, the parties could not agree on costs.

The applicant sought $40,000 in costs, relying on an offer to settle that was more favourable than the trial outcome.

The court found the applicant beat his offer and was presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

However, because the applicant failed to provide a proper bill of costs, the court declined to assess his 29 separate statements of account and instead fixed costs at $30,000, using the respondent's costs as a guide.

The plaintiff parents sought an ex parte Mareva injunction to freeze funds they had previously gifted to their adult daughter, alleging she was dissipating the funds under the negative influence of her boyfriend.

The parents claimed the funds were held in trust or subject to a binding agreement restricting their use.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no serious issue to be tried or irreparable harm.

The court held that the daughter was the sole legal and beneficial owner of the funds upon turning 18, precluding the existence of a trust, and that any subsequent agreement regarding the funds' use was not legally binding or would only yield nominal damages.

The applicant wife brought a motion for extensive financial disclosure from the respondent husband regarding his personal finances and interests in over twenty companies.

The court ordered the husband to provide the requested disclosure, including a proper financial statement, tax returns, and corporate records, by specified deadlines.

The court dismissed the wife's request for non-party production orders as premature.

The court also ordered the husband to retain a business valuation expert by a set date, failing which it would consider appointing the wife's expert as a court-appointed expert.

During the COVID-19 court suspension, the father brought an urgent motion alleging his 8-year-old son expressed suicidal ideation due to unhappiness at the mother's residence.

The mother disputed the urgency, characterizing the child as "normal, happy." The Triage Judge found the allegations potentially urgent, emphasizing the need for prompt investigation in serious child welfare matters.

The court set an expedited schedule for responding materials and a teleconference hearing to formally determine urgency and make necessary orders.

This decision follows a two-day trial concerning custody and access for the parties' two children.

The father sought equal parenting time (50/50), while the mother sought joint custody with primary care to her and specific access for the father.

The court applied the "best interests of the child" test under the Children's Law Reform Act, giving particular consideration to the elder child's special needs for routine and stability.

The court found the mother better suited to meet the elder child's needs and ordered joint custody with primary residence to the mother, granting the father parenting time on alternating weekends and two mid-week evening visits.

The court also addressed the parents' communication issues, ordering the use of a communication program and emphasizing the need to avoid conflict in front of the children.

Child support and Section 7 expenses were also determined.

The Father brought a motion seeking an alternating weekly summer parenting schedule and a variation of the parenting time commencing September 1, 2018.

The court limited the motion to summer access, as leave for the variation was not granted.

The Father argued for a "week about" schedule based on an OCL report's future recommendation, while the Mother raised concerns about a child's mental health, which the court found inconsistent and unsubstantiated for the purpose of the motion.

The court declined to vary the summer access from the 2017 agreement, which provided each parent with one full week in July and one in August, with the regular schedule applying otherwise.

This endorsement addresses costs following the applicant's success in responding to the respondent's motion for interim spousal and child support.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, citing the respondent's unreasonable behaviour, including requiring a procedural motion for an adjournment and rejecting more favourable settlement terms.

The respondent did not provide costs submissions.

The court found the applicant was entitled to costs on a substantial indemnity basis, applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court fixed costs at $3,880, payable from the respondent's share of the matrimonial home proceeds, adjusting the applicant's requested amount based on a calculation of substantial indemnity from full indemnity figures and considering the parties' limited means.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion by Mr. Khan for increased access to the children, on which he was substantially successful.

Both parties sought costs.

Ms. Khan sought $16,941.36, and Mr. Khan sought $22,363.63.

The court considered Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and Rule 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, noting Mr. Khan's substantial success on the underlying motion and Ms. Khan's inflexibility regarding access.

Despite questioning the time spent by Mr. Khan's counsel given the issues' simplicity, the court fixed costs at $15,000 inclusive, to be paid by Ms. Khan to Mr. Khan within 90 days.

The applicant father, residing in California, brought an application under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act to terminate his spousal and child support obligations due to his recent unemployment.

The court suspended spousal support and reduced child support for the younger child, but declined to erase the substantial arrears accumulated while the applicant was employed.

The court also dismissed the applicant's requests for child support for the adult child living with him and for an access order regarding the younger child due to insufficient evidence.

The applicant was ordered to pay $4,000 in costs.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a costs decision, which was previously denied.

The court then received written submissions regarding the costs of the leave to appeal application.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs, arguing the matter was complex, unnecessarily lengthened by the applicant, and entirely successful.

The court agreed, noting the applicant's late filings, lack of merit, incomplete materials, and allegations of bias.

The court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent full indemnity costs in the amount of $17,253.00.

The parties brought cross-motions on interim family law issues.

The applicant sought to reduce the listing price of the matrimonial home, payment of child support arrears, and contribution to consolidated debt.

The respondent sought interim and retroactive spousal support.

The court ordered the listing price of the matrimonial home reduced to $295,000, postponed the issue of child support arrears to trial, maintained the status quo on the consolidated debt, and declined to order interim spousal support as entitlement was not clearly established.

Following a prior decision released August 19, 2015, the court addressed the issue of costs.

After reviewing written submissions from both parties, the court determined that the successful applicant was entitled to a costs award.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs fixed in a lump sum amount.

The order required immediate payment.

Following a second trial in a family law matter, the court determined the costs for both the first and second trials.

The first trial had been overturned on appeal due to inadequate reasons by the trial judge.

The court declined to award costs for the first trial, finding neither party at fault for its failure.

For the second trial, the applicant was substantially more successful and had made a reasonable offer to settle.

However, the court noted that both parties had unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $150,000 for the second trial.

The applicant sought child support, spousal support, and a declaration of unjust enrichment regarding a property purchased by the respondent.

The court imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes, finding he unreasonably deducted business expenses from his employment income.

The court awarded the applicant spousal support of $200 per month for 24 months due to her financial dependence and child care obligations.

However, the court dismissed the applicant's unjust enrichment claim, finding no intention between the parties to co-own the property and concluding the funds advanced were for living expenses and debt repayment.

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking termination of spousal support and retroactive adjustments, alleging the respondent was intentionally underemployed and requesting income be imputed to her.

The respondent sought increased spousal support, sole custody, adjustments to child support, and arrears for s. 7 expenses.

Applying the test from Drygala v. Pauli and s. 19 of the Child Support Guidelines, the court found the respondent had made reasonable efforts to obtain additional employment within the school board and declined to impute full‑time income.

However, the court imputed $10,000 in additional income based on the respondent’s ability to earn supplementary income through tutoring.

The court also limited s. 7 expenses to those specified in the prior consent order and dismissed additional claims for expenses not previously agreed upon.

The applicant father sought joint custody and expanded access to the parties' two children, while the respondent mother sought sole custody.

The father, who had not worked since 2009 and exhibited intense anger and a disordered mental state during the trial, demonstrated no ability to communicate cooperatively with the mother.

The court granted sole custody to the mother and maintained the father's supervised access on alternate weekends.

Claims for child support and equalization were adjourned due to the parties' failure to file proper financial statements.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's Answer and Claim and to find him in contempt for his ongoing failure to comply with multiple court orders regarding financial disclosure and costs.

The respondent argued he had purged his contempt to the extent possible, citing health issues, lack of funds, and reliance on third parties.

The court found the respondent had not met his obligations and had provided inadequate excuses.

However, noting some recent progress and the respondent's claim that his health issues had resolved, the court adjourned the motion to strike and the contempt motion, giving the respondent one final opportunity to comply with a strict timetable for disclosure and payment of costs.