Shannon Beddoe

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Following a four‑week civil trial involving wrongful dismissal, oppression claims, and counterclaims for breach of fiduciary duty and misuse of confidential information, the court determined costs.

The plaintiff’s claim for damages exceeding $1 million was dismissed, although he succeeded in establishing that he had been terminated rather than having resigned.

The defendants’ $2 million counterclaim was largely unsuccessful except for minor reimbursement of approximately $300 in expenses.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found success divided but concluded the defendants were the more successful parties overall.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the defendants, reduced to reflect divided success, unnecessary litigation steps, and excessive defence costs.

The plaintiff, former President of a private trust company, sued for wrongful dismissal and oppression after his employment ended amidst allegations of working for another company and improperly claiming expenses.

The court found that the plaintiff was terminated, not that he resigned.

However, the termination was justified for cause because the plaintiff breached his fiduciary duties by misrepresenting his role with another company and engaging in a pattern of claiming expenses from his employer while also deducting them on his income tax returns.

The oppression claim and the employer's counterclaim for misuse of confidential information were dismissed, though the employer was awarded reimbursement for specific improperly claimed expenses.

In a wrongful dismissal and oppression action, the defendants brought a motion seeking (1) answers to refusals and undertakings arising from the plaintiff’s discovery, and (2) leave to amend their statement of defence and counterclaim.

The refusals related to questions about mitigation efforts following termination.

The court held the questions were relevant and protected by the deemed undertaking rule, and the plaintiff’s confidentiality concerns did not justify refusal in the absence of a confidentiality order or evidentiary basis.

Applying the principles governing amendments under Rule 26.01, the court held the proposed amendments raised tenable causes of action and would not cause non-compensable prejudice.

The plaintiff was ordered to answer the discovery refusals and the defendants were granted leave to amend their counterclaim.

The moving party sought production of documents and information held by a court‑appointed receiver in connection with an investigation related to alleged securities fraud proceedings before the Ontario Securities Commission.

The court considered whether the principles governing third‑party production established in R. v. O'Connor and R. v. McNeil applied to records held by a receiver acting as an officer of the court.

It held that although receivers generally are not required to disclose investigative materials beyond their reports, that protection cannot override an accused’s constitutional right to make full answer and defence.

Applying the O'Connor framework, the court required the moving party to demonstrate that the requested records were “likely relevant.” Only limited categories of documents met that threshold, including certain materials from lawyers, the accountant, and recovered emails, while most requests were rejected as speculative fishing expeditions.

The applicant, as Note Trustee of the Maple Trust, brought a motion for an order approving a marketing and sale process for the trust's assets following an Event of Default.

The motion was contested by a party who argued that any sale must obtain prior court approval.

The court approved the sale process but ordered that it include a provision requiring prior court approval for any transaction, applying the Soundair principles, to ensure the best possible price is obtained without unnecessary delay.