Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

Following a family law trial, the applicant mother sought costs of $92,297.84 on a full indemnity basis, arguing the respondent father acted in bad faith and unreasonably.

The court found divided success on most issues except child support, where the mother was wholly successful.

While the court did not find the father acted in bad faith, it concluded he behaved unreasonably by continually denying family violence, which lengthened the trial.

The court ordered the father to pay $45,000 in costs, with $18,459.57 designated as enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' 14-year-old daughter and an order terminating the respondent father's access, alongside resolution of outstanding equalization and child support issues.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the protracted high-conflict relationship, the father's lack of parenting skills, and the child's justified fear and refusal to see him.

The court rejected the father's allegations of parental alienation, awarding sole custody to the mother with no access to the father.

The court also ordered the father to pay an equalization payment of $38,095.88, retroactive child support and section 7 arrears of $16,618.12, and ongoing monthly support.

The applicant moved for an order determining the sum he must pay the respondent to purchase their jointly owned matrimonial home, effectively seeking to vary a previous order that required the home to be listed for sale.

The parties had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale that failed to close.

The court held that, absent an agreement or a formal motion to vary, it lacked jurisdiction to order a transfer of property to the applicant on new terms.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion but updated the timelines in the previous order to facilitate the sale of the home.

The applicant moved for an advance on funds held in trust from the sale of the matrimonial home, leave to amend his application, and disclosure of a deed and survey for the respondent's property in Sri Lanka.

The respondent also requested an advance from the trust funds.

The court dismissed both requests for an advance, finding it could not determine a minimum equalization payment on the record.

The court granted the applicant leave to amend his application, conditional on paying costs, and ordered the respondent to produce the deed and survey for the Sri Lankan property to facilitate a previously ordered appraisal.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding child access.

The applicant mother sought to hold the respondent father in contempt and vary access to supervised access, while the respondent sought to expand access or remedy the applicant's denial of access.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, noting a Children's Aid Society letter stating the children were not in need of protection and wished to see the respondent.

The court found neither party proved a material change in circumstances to vary the existing access orders.

However, the court found the applicant had denied access without a lawful basis and ordered her to comply immediately, awarding substantial indemnity costs to the respondent.

Following the applicant's substantial success on the merits, the court addressed the issue of costs.

Despite the respondent seeking costs against the applicant, the court awarded costs to the applicant based on her success.

The respondent was ordered to pay $3,200 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes within 60 days.

Following a decision on the merits, both the applicant and respondent sought costs of $15,000 against the other.

The court found that neither party was substantially successful, despite both investing considerable time and expense.

Consequently, the court ordered that costs be in the cause.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a 2009 child support order.

The applicant mother responded and sought retroactive variation of child support and section 7 expenses for their two children.

Applying the D.B.S. framework, the court found the father failed to diligently adjust support to reflect his increased income and ordered retroactive variation effective April 2015.

The court declined to impute income to the father, calculating arrears based on the parties' tax assessments.

The father was ordered to pay $35,872.70 in total arrears for child support and section 7 expenses.

The parties brought cross-motions in a high-conflict family law dispute.

The applicant sought a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act, variation of interim parenting orders, and an order dispensing with the respondent's consent for child counselling.

The respondent sought variation of the interim parenting orders.

The court ordered a section 112 investigation under the Courts of Justice Act on consent and dismissed the section 30 assessment request due to the parties' financial constraints.

The court dismissed both parties' motions to vary the interim parenting orders, finding neither established a material change in circumstances under the Gordon v. Goertz test.

The request to dispense with consent for counselling was also dismissed.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to vary a prior order that restricted his child from being in the presence of his life partner.

The applicant sought the variation because he and his partner were setting up a new household where the child would have overnight access.

The court found that the creation of the new household constituted a material change in circumstances that was not previously contemplated.

Concluding that it was in the child's best interests to have maximum contact with her father, the court granted the motion and varied the order to remove the restriction.

The Applicant brought an urgent motion for temporary child and spousal support.

The court determined the motion was urgent given the Applicant's need for accommodation.

The primary issue was the Respondent's income for support calculations.

The court rejected the Respondent's lower estimate for 2020 due to insufficient explanation and belated disclosure, instead relying on his 2018 Line 150 income of $2,256,040.

Based on this income, the court ordered the Respondent to pay $43,437 per month in temporary spousal support and $16,663 per month in temporary child support for one child, adopting the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range due to potential pandemic financial impacts.

The applicant sought a vesting order for the matrimonial home to ensure its sale, following the respondent's initial non-compliance with an order to sign a listing agreement.

The court dismissed the vesting order motion, finding that the applicant did not meet the criteria under s. 100 of the Courts of Justice Act and the Norris test, as there was no underlying claim to ownership or payment order.

Despite the dismissal of the vesting order, the respondent was ordered to pay $2,000 in costs to the applicant due to her unreasonable conduct in initially refusing to sign the listing agreement.

The applicant, Joanne Chuvalo, brought a motion for directions in a guardianship application concerning George Chuvalo.

She sought extensive disclosure of medical, financial, and legal records, and orders to revoke powers of attorney for property and personal care held by George's children, Mitchell and Vanessa Chuvalo.

The court narrowed the scope of disclosure, limiting medical records to periods surrounding the creation of the powers of attorney and dismissing most requests for financial and legal records as premature or disproportionate.

The primary issues were identified as the validity and potential revocation of the 2014 and 2016 powers of attorney.

Costs were reserved to the judge hearing the main guardianship application.

This endorsement addresses costs arising from a motion for temporary spousal support where the Applicant was largely successful.

The Applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the Respondent sought full recovery costs, arguing the Applicant's unreasonable conduct in bringing the motion on short notice should disentitle her to costs.

The court found the Applicant's conduct unreasonable, partly due to her fragile medical condition, but also noted the Respondent's prior failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court determined that the Applicant's unreasonable conduct warranted a reduction in her costs award, but not a denial, and dismissed the Respondent's claim for costs, finding that many of his incurred costs related to overdue financial disclosure.

The Applicant was awarded approximately 50% of her substantial indemnity costs.

The applicant sought a provisional order to adjust child support and calculate arrears retroactive to 2012, citing the respondent's failure to provide financial disclosure as required by a 2011 divorce order.

The respondent eventually provided disclosure, leading to an agreed calculation of significant arrears.

The court confirmed the arrears, denied the respondent's claims for credits for parenting time and expenses, and denied the applicant's request for Section 7 expenses due to a prior agreement.

The court ordered the respondent to continue paying an amount higher than the current guideline amount for the remaining child, with the excess applied to the arrears, and awarded costs to the applicant.

The court addressed costs following a settlement in a family law equalization payment dispute.

The applicant had sought an unequal division, ultimately agreeing to an $80,000 equalization payment to the respondent.

Both parties sought costs, alleging unreasonableness by the other.

The court, applying the Courts of Justice Act and Family Law Rules, found it difficult to determine a "successful party" or assess reasonableness retrospectively in a settled matter without objective benchmarks.

Citing Witherspoon v. Witherspoon and Talbot v. Talbot, the court emphasized that post-settlement cost claims are problematic and that settlement implies compromise.

No costs were awarded, with each party bearing their own.

This trial concerned the equalization of net family property following a marriage breakdown.

The central dispute revolved around the valuation and attribution of a Mexican vacation property, legally owned by a corporation in which the respondent held shares, but which the respondent argued the applicant had a beneficial interest in.

The court also addressed the valuation of various assets and liabilities, including pre-marriage assets and post-separation adjustments.

The court ultimately declined to impose a resulting trust on the Mexican property in favour of the applicant, attributing its full value to the respondent, and ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment to the applicant.

The applicant moved for an order striking the respondent's pleadings, staying proceedings, or for security for costs due to alleged non-compliance with orders and unpaid costs.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking to vary child support, rescind arrears, obtain financial disclosure from the applicant, and prevent further motions without leave.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion to strike pleadings and for security for costs, finding that the respondent's failure to pay costs was due to a medical condition and that disclosure was largely forthcoming.

The respondent's motion for summary judgment on access was not dealt with, and his motion to reduce child support was adjourned.

This motion concerned a long-standing custody dispute between self-represented parents regarding their child, William, born in 2001.

The respondent mother sought a temporary order to change custody of William, allowing him to reside with her in New Brunswick for the 2016-2017 school year.

Despite the mother's history of non-compliance with previous court orders and creating family chaos, the court granted the temporary order, acknowledging William's consistent preference to live with his mother and aiming to end years of conflict.

The court retained Ontario's jurisdiction and imposed several ancillary conditions, including continued involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, arrangements for William's visits with the father, and access to school records.

This endorsement addresses the costs of motions brought by both parties, which involved parenting and procedural issues.

The court found that neither party achieved clear success on the parenting issues, and success was divided on procedural matters.

The respondent sought partial or substantial indemnity costs, while the applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, alleging bad faith by the respondent.

The court declined to find bad faith, noting that both parties contributed to the procedural wrangling and conflict.

Despite the applicant making a timely offer to settle, the court concluded that neither party should be vindicated by a costs award.

Consequently, no costs were awarded to either party for the motions.