Shannon Beddoe

The appellant mother appealed a temporary order granting the respondent father equal parenting time on a week-about basis with their 15-month-old child.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in law by failing to conduct a proper analysis of the best interests of the child under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The motion judge failed to consider the child's young age, the status quo, allegations of family violence, and the AFCC-O Guidelines.

The temporary order was set aside and the matter remitted to a different judge, with an interim graduated parenting schedule put in place.

The Applicant, Pierrette Donaghy, brought a motion seeking findings of breach and various enforcement and preservation remedies against the Respondent, Michael Donaghy, in a long-running family law proceeding.

The Court found the Respondent in breach of multiple court orders regarding disclosure and support, granted preservation orders over his assets, and set deadlines for compliance, including the production of business valuation and income determination reports.

The Court declined to increase the daily penalty for non-compliance but allowed the Applicant to seek to strike the Respondent’s pleadings if he failed to comply by the set date.

Costs were awarded to the Applicant.

The applicant father sought an immediate equal parenting schedule (2-2-3) for their 29-month-old son.

The respondent mother proposed a graduated schedule with increasing overnight time for the father.

The court, considering the child's best interests, young age, and the AFCC Parenting Plan Guidelines for toddlers, ordered a graduated interim and temporary parenting schedule.

This schedule provides for a transition from two separate overnights to three overnights per week for the father, while maintaining the child's weekday care with maternal grandparents.

The court emphasized that the status quo is not a default and there is no presumption for shared parenting, but also noted the thin evidentiary record and encouraged further mediation.

This was a family law costs decision arising from a settled third-party records motion seeking production from a bank.

The court held that settlement did not preclude a full costs analysis and found the moving party was successful because the consent order delivered the disclosure relief sought.

In any event, costs were warranted under the Family Law Rules because the responding party had repeatedly failed to comply with prior disclosure orders and acted unreasonably on the motion itself.

The court found the amount claimed excessive for a straightforward production motion and fixed fair and proportionate costs at $8,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant wife brought a Form 14B motion to strike paragraphs of the respondent husband's Answer and to seal the motion materials.

The court found the motion was properly brought under Rule 14(10).

The court struck the impugned paragraphs of the Answer, finding them to be irrelevant, inflammatory, and a waste of time, seemingly included to embarrass the applicant.

The request for a sealing order was dismissed without prejudice as the applicant failed to provide legal support for the request.

Following an appeal, the court issued a costs endorsement.

The respondent on appeal was awarded partial indemnity costs in the amount of $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's orders regarding prospective and retroactive spousal and child support, as well as the trial costs award.

The trial judge had imputed income to the respondent due to income fluctuations and denied retroactive support because the appellant's bankruptcy had relieved her of the tax debt that caused her financial hardship.

The Court of Appeal applied a deferential standard of review, finding no material error or serious misapprehension of the evidence by the trial judge.

The appeal was dismissed.

The child, who was the subject of a high-conflict custody and child protection dispute, ran away and sought assistance from a legal clinic.

The father obtained an urgent motion order restraining the legal clinic and its lawyer from representing or contacting the child.

The legal clinic and the child appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by conflating a child's right to standing in a proceeding with their fundamental right to seek independent legal advice.

The court held that children are entitled to seek legal advice without permission from their parents or the court.

The Respondents moved for an order to initialize the names of the parties and children in the proceeding to protect their identities.

The Applicant consented to initializing the children's names but opposed initializing the parties' names.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test and considering s. 70 of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court found that initializing both the parties' and children's names was necessary to prevent serious emotional harm to the children due to the sensitive and unique facts of the case, which involved a long-term deception regarding parentage.

The court determined that the salutary effects of the order outweighed the deleterious effects on the open court principle, especially given the limited nature of the order (initials only, no sealing or publication ban).

The motion was granted, and costs were awarded to the Respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

A case management conference was held to set procedural directions for an upcoming appeal before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

The court ordered the hearing to proceed via video conference and provided detailed instructions for the creation of a password-protected electronic drop box for document filing.

Directions were also given regarding the formatting of electronic documents, hyperlinking of authorities, and the potential for a motion to quash the appeal to be heard by the appeal panel.

The Applicant sought an urgent motion to impose strict COVID-19 physical distancing measures on the Respondent and to suspend his parenting time, citing concerns about his adherence to protocols.

The Respondent brought a cross-motion for an immediate 50/50 parenting schedule.

The court dismissed both the Applicant's motion for specific protocols and the Respondent's cross-motion for a new schedule, finding neither urgent nor justified.

The court emphasized the presumption of continuing existing parenting arrangements and ordered the parties to follow government health directives and agree on make-up parenting time for the Respondent.

Following a lengthy family law trial where the applicant father was overwhelmingly successful, he sought costs of $1.1 million.

The court found the respondent mother's litigation conduct unreasonable, particularly regarding parenting and income issues, and noted she failed to beat the applicant's offers to settle.

The court awarded the applicant $750,000 in costs on a partial recovery basis.

The court declined the applicant's request to characterize the costs as support to protect them from bankruptcy, finding that costs awarded to a support payor do not fall within the definition of a support order under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act.

The applicant mother brought a motion to find the respondent father in contempt of a prior court order requiring his participation in reunification therapy and a section 30 assessment for their son.

The court found the father in contempt of the provisions requiring him to adhere to the therapy agreement and attend sessions, noting his deliberate and willful delay and refusal to cooperate.

The court dismissed the contempt allegations regarding communication with the therapist and payment of the assessor's retainer, as the latter is a payment order not enforceable by contempt under the Family Law Rules.

The father was ordered to pay a $25,000 fine, return the child to the mother, and was sentenced to 30 days imprisonment, which could be reduced or suspended upon compliance with specific conditions.

The Children and Family Services for York Region ("the Society") brought a motion seeking three orders: placing a child (A.G.) in the Society's care, appointing independent legal counsel for the children (A.G. and M.G.), and requiring the father (J.G.) to undergo a sexual behaviours assessment, including phallometric testing.

The motion to place A.G. in care was adjourned by consent for kin assessments.

The court dismissed the request for independent legal counsel, finding it unnecessary and potentially detrimental in a case marked by parental alienation, where the children's views were already known and potentially influenced by the mother.

The court also dismissed the request for a sexual behaviours assessment, ruling it was not "necessary" under section 98(2) of the Child Youth and Family Services Act, given the inconclusive nature of the allegations, the intrusive nature of the testing, and the existence of other grounds for protection related to parental conflict and alienation.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for sole custody and a graduated access schedule for her two children, who reside with her in Ontario.

The respondent father, residing in Italy, failed to exercise access for 19 months and initiated criminal abduction proceedings against the mother in Italy.

The court found that the father was validly served in Italy by a private process server under Article 10(c) of the Hague Convention on Service Abroad.

The court granted default judgment, awarding sole custody to the mother and ordering a graduated access schedule for the father in Ontario, finding it in the children's best interests.

Following a 12-day family law trial primarily focused on the children's estrangement from the applicant father and the respondent mother's mobility claim to Arizona, both parties sought costs.

The court found that success on the parenting issues was divided, as the father did not achieve a custody reversal and the mother was not permitted to move.

Neither party was found to have acted in bad faith or to be markedly more reasonable on the parenting issues, resulting in no costs awarded for that portion.

However, the mother was more successful and reasonable regarding the financial issues, particularly the valuation of the father's professional building.

The court awarded the mother $20,000 in costs inclusive of disbursements and HST for the financial issues.

The parties separated after a high-conflict marriage.

The children resided primarily with the mother and became estranged from the father.

The father sought a 90-day custody reversal to repair the relationship, alleging parental alienation, while the mother sought to relocate with the children to Arizona.

The court found the children were unjustifiably rejecting the father and that the mother had failed to facilitate their relationship.

The court denied the custody reversal but ordered joint custody with a strict access schedule for the father, and denied the mother's mobility application.

The court also resolved financial issues, valuing the father's professional building at $600,000 and ordering him to pay retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support.

Following a finding of contempt against the respondent mother for unilaterally withholding access to the children, the parties could not agree on costs.

The applicant father sought costs on a full indemnity scale.

The court reviewed the principles of costs in family law, including the consequences of unreasonable conduct and bad faith.

Finding that the respondent's conduct was unreasonable but did not rise to the level of egregious bad faith required for full indemnity, the court applied the rebuttable presumption that substantial indemnity costs are appropriate for contempt.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of $19,046.12.

The applicant father brought a contempt motion alleging that the respondent mother breached a final parenting order by unilaterally withholding his court‑ordered access to the parties’ children and imposing supervised daytime contact.

The respondent cross‑moved seeking directions to bring a motion to change the order and requesting supervised access pending the motion.

Applying the three‑part contempt test, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent deliberately breached a clear access order without lawful justification.

The evidence did not establish a serious risk of harm to the children that could justify unilateral non‑compliance.

The court ordered the respondent to resume compliance and provide make‑up parenting time, granted leave to bring a motion to change in accordance with the Family Law Rules, and requested updated involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The parties sought costs following competing motions in a family law proceeding.

The applicant was substantially successful on her motion for financial disclosure and an advance on equalization, while the respondent was successful on his motion for exclusive possession of the cottage.

The court determined that both parties acted reasonably and awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, applying maximum allowable hourly rates.

After assessing the respective costs, the court ordered a net set-off amount of $6,753.47 payable by the applicant to the respondent.