Sean D. Heeley

The Applicant, Marcy Lightfoot, sought costs on a full recovery basis following a successful motion for partition and sale of the matrimonial home and interim spousal support.

The Respondents, David Lightfoot and Evelyn Lightfoot, opposed the costs.

The court awarded costs of $29,000 to the Applicant, citing the Respondent David Lightfoot's unreasonable, obstructionist, and contemptuous conduct throughout the litigation, including his refusal to settle and disrespectful behaviour in court.

The decision emphasized that self-represented litigants are not immune from costs consequences for inappropriate conduct.

The appellant, Anita Csizmazia, appealed an order refusing to set aside a final order made after an uncontested trial.

She alleged misrepresentation and concealment of facts by the respondent, Zoltan Csizmazia, and a significant miscarriage of justice.

The review judge had dismissed her motion, noting that her financial issues were moot due to her bankruptcy and rejecting her claim of lack of notice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the review judge's reasons sufficient and affirming that the appellant's bankruptcy rendered her equalization claims moot, thus making it unnecessary to address the fraud allegations.

The applicant sought to enforce a notice of garnishment to collect a $21,082 debt owed by the respondent pursuant to a family law settlement order.

The respondent disputed the garnishment, arguing she could not refinance her home to pay the debt because the applicant had not yet released her from liability on their jointly owned home's mortgage, as required by the same order.

The court found the conditions of the settlement order were not severable and the applicant's fulfilment of his obligations was essential to the respondent fulfilling hers.

The notices of garnishment were quashed.

The Respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary parenting order, seeking increased parenting time and make-up time with the children, Abigail and Naomi, after the Applicant mother unilaterally suspended in-person contact due to concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic and the father's employment as an essential worker (bus driver).

The Applicant cross-moved, initially seeking to limit contact to virtual, then proposing limited outdoor visits.

The court found a manifest change in circumstances due to the pandemic and varied the existing order.

It granted the Applicant's alternative request for regular, limited daytime outdoor visits with strict safety conditions, denying the Respondent's request for extended overnight access.

The decision considered the children's best interests, their special needs, the mother's role as primary caregiver, and the health risks to medically fragile maternal grandparents residing with the children.

In a high-conflict family law dispute, the Applicant father sought relief, including a contempt finding, against the Respondent mother for her persistent denial of access, non-compliance with court orders regarding passports and counselling, and actions that exposed the children to unnecessary police involvement.

The court, drawing on its extensive history with the file, found the mother's conduct amounted to parental alienation and was detrimental to the children's emotional well-being.

A temporary order was issued granting exclusive residence to the father and severely restricting the mother's access.

The applicant sought costs for a previous motion.

The court awarded the applicant $2,500, less than the $3,300 requested, noting the applicant's partial success and lack of serious settlement effort.

The respondent's position on access was deemed "ridiculous," making settlement unlikely.

The court declined to make the costs enforceable as child support, as the motion did not pertain to child support.

The applicant mother brought a motion for a temporary order changing the terms of access for the parties' four-year-old son pending trial.

The court found that the respondent father had used the existing access order to extend conflict, including improperly keeping the child over Serbian Orthodox Christmas in 2018 and keeping the child out of school during mid-week access.

To minimize conflict, the court temporarily cancelled the father's mid-week access, granted the mother access for Serbian Orthodox Christmas in 2019, and permitted the mother to cancel one weekend access to take the child on a March break vacation.

Following a motion for increased parenting time where the applicant father was granted expanded access, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found that while the applicant was overall more successful than the respondent mother, both parties had taken unreasonable and overly aggressive positions regarding the time-sharing schedule.

The applicant failed to serve a formal Offer to Settle, and the respondent had limited financial means.

Balancing these factors, the court awarded the applicant $4,200 in costs, representing approximately 50% of his total legal fees and disbursements.

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.

The applicant sought sole guardianship of Juliet Eastlyn Hamilton for personal care under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, to implement a "Do Not Resuscitate" (DNR) direction and manage end-of-life care.

The co-guardian, Nicole Hamilton, and Juliet's spouse, Trevor Hamilton, opposed this, citing Juliet's religious beliefs and previous wishes for all possible steps to prolong life.

The court granted sole guardianship to the applicant, finding that his request was in Juliet's best interests based on objective medical evidence of her deteriorating health and constant pain, and that his intention was not to actively terminate life but to allow natural progression with a DNR.

In a last-minute motion, the court addressed a dispute between separated parents regarding their three-year-old child's junior kindergarten enrollment.

The mother, who had unilaterally relocated to Niagara-on-the-Lake, sought to enroll the child there.

The father sought enrollment in Hamilton, consistent with a separation agreement and the child's established Hamilton-based status quo.

The court emphasized that the child's best interests must prevail over a "fait accompli" created by one parent's unilateral action.

It found that the mother's relocation jeopardized the successful equal-time-sharing arrangement and that major changes with mobility implications should not be made on a temporary basis without compelling circumstances.

The court dismissed the mother's motion and granted the father's request for enrollment in Hamilton, establishing a temporary equal time-sharing arrangement with the mother responsible for transportation.

The applicants sought a declaration of a prescriptive easement over a portion of the respondents' adjacent property for vehicle and pedestrian ingress and egress to their garage and parking area.

The court applied the four-part test for prescriptive easements, including the requirement of 'reasonable necessity' and continuous, uninterrupted, open, peaceful, and 'as of right' use for 20 years prior to land titles registration.

Finding the applicants' evidence compelling and the respondents' counter-arguments insufficient, the court granted the easement and ordered the removal of a fence erected by the respondents.