Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The applicant brought a motion to amend a final order, alleging fraud by the respondent.

The court previously dismissed the motion, finding no fraud, but corrected three calculation errors conceded by the respondent.

In this costs endorsement, the respondent sought full indemnity costs due to the unproven fraud allegations.

The court rejected the applicant's request to defer costs to the trial judge, finding the applicant persisted with baseless fraud claims despite the respondent's early concessions.

The applicant was ordered to pay full indemnity costs of $16,615.59.

The applicant father brought a motion under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to set aside or vary a 2018 final order regarding child support arrears and section 7 expenses.

He alleged the order was obtained by fraud because the respondent mother misrepresented facts about where the children lived and her income.

The court found that the father had wilfully ignored the 2018 proceedings despite having notice, and failed to prove fraud.

The motion was dismissed, save for minor calculation errors conceded by the mother.

The applicant brought a motion seeking production of a lawyer's file, arguing she had an explicit or implicit solicitor-client relationship with him, or alternatively, that the respondents waived privilege.

The lawyer had acted for the respondent and the corporate respondents during a period when the parties were allegedly involved in a joint family venture involving cryptocurrency.

The court found the applicant failed to establish a solicitor-client relationship, as the few documents she relied on were insufficient to show she was led to believe he was her lawyer.

The court also found no evidence that the respondents waived privilege.

Although the motion was dismissed, the court struck significant portions of the respondent's affidavit for relying on inadmissible hearsay in breach of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion for interim spousal support and disclosure of cryptocurrency holdings.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle and found the applicant beat her offer regarding spousal support and met her offer regarding native file format disclosure.

The applicant was awarded costs of $104,533 on a substantial recovery basis.

The corporate respondents were successful on a discrete issue regarding a server and were awarded costs of $12,600 on a partial indemnity basis, to be paid from the applicant's costs award.

Following a motion and cross-motion with divided success, the applicant sought costs of $25,000.

The respondent argued for no costs or costs reserved, citing limited means and divided success.

The court found the applicant was presumed entitled to costs as the respondent's motion was dismissed and the applicant achieved some success.

The court fixed costs at $12,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable by the respondent within 120 days due to his limited means.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion for a stay of an interim relocation order, the applicant sought full recovery costs of over $12,000.

The respondent argued for a reduced quantum of $3,000 due to recent job loss and financial strain.

The court found no bad faith to justify full recovery but awarded costs at 75% of full recovery to sanction the respondent's unreasonable behaviour.

Costs were fixed at $9,600, with a direction that failure to pay would not bar the respondent from future participation in the proceeding.

The respondent, Todd Miller, brought an application to rescind child support arrears totaling $22,892.37, citing current incapacity due to medical conditions and receipt of ODSP.

The applicant, Julia Long, opposed the rescission.

The court, applying established legal principles, determined that a present inability to pay does not automatically justify rescission without assessing the applicant's future capacity to pay.

Finding no evidence that the respondent would permanently be unable to pay the arrears, the court dismissed the application for rescission.

Instead, it suspended payments and interest on the arrears, allowing the applicant to seek reinstatement if the respondent's financial circumstances improve.

The respondent was ordered to continue annual income tax statement disclosure.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support and interim disbursements.

The core issue was determining the respondent's income, as he claimed an income of $200,000 to $260,000 while the applicant argued it was over $1.4 million based on pre-tax corporate income and benefits.

The court found the respondent's Line 150 income was not the fairest determination and fixed his income at $707,500 for temporary support purposes, applying sections 16, 17, and 18 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court also ordered the respondent to provide a fair market valuation of his business interests, finding them relevant to spousal support despite a marriage contract.

Following a six-day trial regarding property ownership, the applicant sought costs of $44,227.35.

The court found the applicant was the successful party, having obtained half the property as requested.

The applicant's offer to settle was more favourable than the trial outcome, entitling him to full recovery of costs from the date of the offer under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

While the respondent's conduct was unreasonable, it did not meet the high threshold for bad faith.

The court fixed costs payable to the applicant at $37,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The respondent was successful on her motion for temporary spousal support and the sale of the matrimonial home.

She had previously made a settlement offer to accept a lower amount of support.

The applicant had unwisely withheld support to leverage increased access, which was delayed pending an OCL report.

The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $5,000 for fees plus HST and $300 for disbursements.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment dismissing the respondent's claims, the applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court found the respondent's conduct in the litigation, including ignoring a valid separation agreement and demanding oppressive disclosure, warranted full indemnity costs.

The court reduced the applicant's claimed hours and disallowed travel time, fixing costs at $21,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The children's aid society brought a motion to dismiss the father's appeal of a child protection order for delay or, in the alternative, on the merits.

The father had experienced delays in obtaining legal aid and transcripts, and had recently been charged with criminal offences resulting in a bail condition prohibiting contact with the child.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the delay was not unreasonable given the circumstances and that the appeal had merit.

The court emphasized that the father is presumed innocent of the criminal charges and that the appeal could be heard before the expiration of the current supervision order.

The parties separated after a long marriage involving multiple relocations between Latvia and Canada.

The husband sought equalization of net family property, child support, and spousal support.

The wife argued that a marriage contract signed in Latvia excluded her property from equalization.

The court found that while a marriage contract existed, its language did not explicitly or implicitly exclude the equalization provisions of the Family Law Act.

The court valued the parties' foreign and domestic assets, ordering the wife to pay an equalization payment of $71,633.50 in installments.

The wife was granted sole custody of the youngest child, and the husband was ordered to pay $174 monthly in child support based on an imputed minimum wage income.

In an ongoing family law arbitration regarding property valuation, the moving party husband sought to introduce 2015 year-end financial statements.

The arbitrator adjourned the hearing to allow the parties to seek direction from the Superior Court on the admissibility of the documents under section 6.1 of the Arbitration Act.

The court reluctantly accepted jurisdiction due to the parties' consent and the unique circumstances.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the documents were inadmissible hearsay as the author was not being called as a witness and the arbitration agreement limited witnesses to the parties' experts.

The moving party brought a motion for a refraining order against the Director of the Family Responsibility Office to prevent the suspension of his driver's license due to $3,000 in support arrears.

The moving party had unilaterally deducted $3,000 from his support payment, claiming a set-off for indirect payments made.

The court found that while the moving party made out a prima facie case for variation, he did not come to court with 'clean hands' because he took matters into his own hands by creating his own set-off against periodic support rather than waiting for the court to resolve the issue.

The motion for a refraining order was dismissed, and the moving party was ordered to pay costs to his former spouse, who had to respond to an improperly included claim for suspension of enforcement.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home following a dispute, after which she left the home with the children.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for exclusive possession or, alternatively, a nesting arrangement.

The court found that the children were not at risk of harm and that both parents were involved caregivers.

The court dismissed both motions for exclusive possession and ordered a temporary nesting arrangement where the parents would rotate occupying the home with the children.

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion to adjourn the trial scheduled for January 2016 to April or May 2016.

The moving party argued that an adjournment was necessary due to outstanding expert reports, incomplete questioning, and a pending section 30 assessment report.

The responding party opposed the motion, citing prejudice and the moving party's failure to comply with previous timetables.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party had twice consented to trial dates and failed to comply with the associated timetables, and that further delay would prejudice the responding party and the parties' child.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support.

The key issue was determining the respondent's income, as he had recently lost his high-paying job and was managing significant debt.

The applicant sought to impute the respondent's 2014 income of $377,763, while the respondent argued his 2015 income was $229,721.

The court declined to impute the higher income, finding the job loss was involuntary.

Due to the unusual circumstances of job loss and significant debt, the court departed from the guidelines and applied a needs-based approach, ordering the respondent to pay $1,500 in child support and $4,500 in spousal support monthly, plus child care expenses.

The applicant sought interim shared custody of a young child, while the respondent opposed the request.

The court held that shared custody was not in the child’s best interests on the interim record but ordered expanded access including periodic overnight parenting time.

The court also ordered the applicant to pay guideline child support and interim spousal support after considering the parties’ incomes, including questions surrounding the respondent’s potential rental income from property abroad.

The interim parenting arrangement was set to operate for three months to assess its effectiveness.

The applicant brought a motion to compel compliance with outstanding orders, for contempt, and to strike the respondent's Answer and Claim following chronic non-compliance with financial disclosure obligations.

The court found that the respondent had failed to purge his previous contempt and imposed a $300,000 penalty.

Due to the respondent's ongoing failure to comply with court orders and the Family Law Rules, the court struck his Answer and Claim, limiting his future participation in the proceedings, and awarded full indemnity costs to the applicant.