Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

This is a costs endorsement arising from a jurisdiction motion and a Rule 25(19) motion.

The court had previously determined that Ontario had jurisdiction over spousal support claims but that property division claims were governed by Iranian law under s.15 of the Family Law Act.

The applicant, Ms. Namdar, was found to be the successful party on the underlying jurisdiction motion and sought substantial indemnity costs.

The respondent, Mr. Maali, argued for divided success and sought costs based on an offer to settle.

The court found that Mr. Maali's offer to settle did not constitute a true compromise, thus not triggering Rule 18(14) cost consequences.

Considering the complexity and importance of the issues, and the reasonable conduct of both parties, the court awarded Ms. Namdar fixed costs and disbursements of $32,250, which included expert fees, finding her claimed fees of over $70,000 to be disproportionate.

This is a child protection summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa seeking a finding that three children (S.L., J.L., N.C.) are in need of protection and an order for extended society care.

The parents contested the grounds for protection and the disposition.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the children being in need of protection under multiple subsections of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, and ordered extended society care.

However, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the parents' access to the children.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion seeking the immediate sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home due to imminent bank foreclosure and to strike the applicant father's pleadings for non-compliance with a disclosure order.

The father opposed the sale, asserting the children's best interests and his efforts to manage the property.

The court granted the mother's request for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, dispensing with the father's consent and granting the mother sole authority over the sale process.

The motion to strike pleadings was adjourned.

The court found the property unaffordable for the father, the sale inevitable, and no legitimate family law claims prejudiced by the sale, also noting the father's uncooperative and bizarre conduct.

The Applicant sought to set aside an arbitration award concerning the sale of a jointly owned property, arguing the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to invalidate prior court orders granting her a right of first refusal.

The Respondent sought dismissal, arguing the prior orders were not final and the arbitrator acted within scope.

The court found the arbitrator correctly determined he lacked jurisdiction to enforce court orders, but erred in concluding he could invalidate them or direct a sale without formal agreement.

The court set aside the portion of the award requiring the property's sale and the reimbursement of expenses, upholding the Applicant's right of first refusal.

This family law trial addressed custody, access, child support, and a restraining order.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, primary residence, and various financial orders, including retroactive child support and reinstatement of arrears, as well as a restraining order and passport authorization.

The respondent father sought joint custody and expanded overnight parenting time.

The court granted the mother sole custody and primary residence, requiring her to consult the father on major decisions.

The father was granted expanded overnight access.

The court imputed income to the father for child support purposes and reinstated child support arrears by setting aside a previous order.

The mother's requests for passport authorization and a restraining order were dismissed.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a motion where the Applicant was successful.

The Applicant sought costs on a full or partial indemnity basis, citing success and the Respondent's unreasonable conduct.

The Respondent argued against costs due to the Applicant's failure to serve an offer to settle, or alternatively, proposed a lower partial indemnity amount.

The court awarded the Applicant costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding her success warranted it but not the Respondent's conduct for a higher scale.

Costs were ordered payable to Legal Aid Ontario.

This motion addressed several outstanding issues between separated parents, including the management of s. 7 expenses for children, reconciliation of rent revenues from properties, allocation of corporate debt, and a passport penalty.

The court determined that children's acting expenses should be included in the s. 7 budget, with any income generated to be set aside for future post-secondary or acting costs.

It ordered the creation of a new joint bank account for s. 7 contributions with monthly statements.

The court reconciled rent revenues, finding the respondent owed the applicant $18,532.70 after various adjustments.

Claims by the applicant regarding a lien and an HST error related to corporate debt were dismissed, as was the respondent's claim for a passport penalty.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to prevent the respondent mother from relocating with their nine-year-old autistic child to Fergus, Ontario.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking leave to relocate, arguing the move would provide better autism support services and family support.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework and found that, despite the interim nature of the motion, there were compelling circumstances to allow the move.

The court granted the mother's cross-motion to relocate on a temporary basis and established a new access schedule for the father.

The applicant mother sought to change a previous order, requesting sole custody of one child (BB), changes to parenting terms, and child support.

The respondent father sought to maintain joint custody, reduce the mother's access, and for the mother to pay child support.

He also brought a motion for contempt against the mother.

The court found extreme parental conflict, making joint custody unworkable.

The mother was granted sole custody and decision-making authority for BB, and sole decision-making for AB and EB in matters of education, counselling, and healthcare, with a modified residential schedule.

The father's income was imputed for child support purposes, and his contempt motion was largely dismissed, except for two minor issues.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support of $50,000 per month following a short relationship with a high-income respondent earning $2.88 million annually.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie case for non-compensatory entitlement due to economic dependency created during the relationship.

Noting the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines are not presumptive for incomes over $350,000, the court conducted an individualized analysis of the parties' lavish lifestyle and the applicant's short-term needs.

The court ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support of $25,000 per month retroactive to April 1, 2019.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of legal costs following a comprehensive order by Price J. on October 29, 2018, and subsequent motions heard by Fragomeni J. on April 1 and 8, 2019.

For the October 2018 attendance, where a substantial portion of the order was by agreement, the court determined that each party should bear their own costs.

For the April 2019 motions, which involved a motion to vary a consent order, child support, spousal support, division of matrimonial home proceeds, and health benefits, the court found the results to be mixed.

Despite offers to settle, neither party achieved a significantly more favourable outcome.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs for both sets of proceedings.

This trial decision addresses a divorce, custody, access, child support, spousal support, and property equalization for a couple with two daughters (16 and 14) after 13.5 years of marriage and 4.5 years of separation marked by high conflict.

The court granted a divorce, ordered no custody for the 16-year-old (SHV) respecting her wishes but mandated school stability, and joint custody for the 14-year-old (CHV) with primary residence with the mother and weekend access for the father, including tie-breaking authority for education (mother) and non-emergency healthcare (father).

Child support was set at $1777/month plus 70% of Section 7 expenses.

Spousal support of $844/month was awarded indefinitely to the mother on compensatory grounds.

Retroactive support was denied due to the mother's incomplete financial disclosure and the father's post-separation payments.

Property equalization resulted in a payment owing from the mother to the father, which the father waived to offset any retroactive spousal support claim.

This child protection trial concerned two boys, N. and D., who had been in the child protection system since infancy due to parental drug addiction and domestic violence.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for extended society care (crown wardship), while the father, maternal grandmother, and paternal grandparents each proposed alternative plans of care.

The court found that none of the respondents could provide a stable and safe environment due to ongoing drug addiction, emotional volatility, and persistent family conflict that placed the children in loyalty binds.

The maternal grandmother was found to have actively undermined the father's access and court orders.

The paternal grandparents were deemed deluded about their son's capacity.

The court granted the Society's request for extended society care, emphasizing the children's long-term best interests for stability and insulation from conflict, and leaving access decisions to the Society's discretion.

The trial addressed retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support following the resolution of parenting and equalization issues.

The court determined that the applicant did not owe retroactive child support but owed retroactive spousal support of $51,238.

Ongoing child and spousal support were set based on the applicant's income of $153,449 and the respondent's imputed income of $25,000.

Spousal support was made subject to a material change of circumstances upon the applicant's actual retirement.

The court also addressed the imputation of income for the respondent and the add-back of certain business expenses for the applicant.

This costs decision followed a trial addressing pension equalization, retroactive and ongoing spousal support, and medical expenses.

The court found success to be mixed, but the Applicant (Wife) was marginally more successful overall, despite her unreasonable conduct regarding the pension equalization.

The Respondent (Husband) was unsuccessful on a motion to amend his Answer.

Neither party fully achieved their offers to settle.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court considered the parties' conduct, offers, complexity, and proportionality of legal fees, noting the Husband's disproportionately high costs.

The Husband was ordered to pay the Wife $7,500 plus HST and disbursements of $671 plus HST.

This endorsement addresses costs for a motion where the Wife sought interim spousal support and exclusive possession, and the Husband brought a cross-motion.

While the Wife achieved modest success on the main motion, the court found both parties' litigation conduct to be unreasonable, characterized by a refusal to make concessions and an overly combative approach.

Despite both parties seeking substantial indemnity costs, the court awarded no costs, emphasizing the need to correct their behaviour and noting the disproportionate costs incurred relative to the modest success and lack of advancement in the overall application.

In a family law motion concerning parenting time, the father sought a regular access schedule with the child while the mother preferred a flexible arrangement dependent on the child’s willingness to visit.

The court considered the child’s participation in a behavioural therapy program addressing oppositional defiance and anxiety disorders and the ongoing involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The judge concluded that leaving access entirely dependent on the child’s choice was inappropriate.

An interim structured access schedule was ordered, with expanded overnight access contingent on the father’s participation in the child’s therapy program and subject to the therapist’s recommendation.

The order was to remain in force pending the Office of the Children’s Lawyer report and further court direction.

Following a five‑day family law trial in which both parties were self‑represented, the court addressed costs and implementation of a previously ordered parenting coordinator.

Each party had made settlement offers that were either not met or too outdated to be considered.

The court found significant litigation misconduct and unreasonable behaviour by both parties, including excessive disclosure demands and failure to comply with access orders on one side and bullying communications and resistance to a parenting coordinator on the other.

Concluding that neither party was sufficiently more successful and that their conduct contributed equally to the litigation, the court declined to award costs.

The claims for costs by both parties were dismissed.

A family law trial concerning custody, access, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property following the breakdown of a marriage.

The court considered claims for spousal support, valuation of a closely held HVAC corporation, alleged debts incurred through promissory notes, and alleged concealed income.

Spousal support was denied as the claimant failed to establish economic disadvantage or need.

The court ordered joint custody with primary residence with the mother and a structured access schedule for the father.

Child support was recalculated based on imputed income including undeclared cash income, and an equalization payment was ordered.

Appeal from an Ontario Court of Justice order made at a settlement conference in a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act.

The settlement conference judge removed the matter from trial assignment court and extended the timeline under Rule 33 of the Family Law Rules without notice, relying on settlement conference materials and discussions.

The appellate court held that settlement conference briefs and discussions are protected by Rules 17(23) and 17(24) and cannot form the basis for adjudicative orders absent consent or proper notice.

The judge erred in extending the statutory timeline based on settlement conference materials and without procedural fairness.

The appeal was allowed and any future request to extend timelines was directed to be heard by a different judge.