Shannon L. More

In a high-conflict family proceeding involving allegations of child abuse, the respondent father brought a motion for the disclosure of various non-party records, including child protection files, medical and counselling records, and the Crown brief from his ongoing criminal prosecution.

The court applied the Wigmore test and Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules.

The court ordered the disclosure of the child protection investigation file and the mother's mental health records, finding them relevant to the parenting issues.

However, the court dismissed the request for the children's therapeutic and medical records, finding they were protected by case-by-case privilege.

The court also declined to order the disclosure of the Crown brief to protect the integrity of the ongoing criminal prosecution.

This endorsement addresses the quantum of costs following the dismissal of the Applicant Wife's motion for partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The motion was dismissed because a prior consent order permitted the Respondent Husband to purchase the Applicant's interest.

The Respondent sought full recovery costs, citing the Applicant's unreasonable litigation conduct and an offer to settle.

The court found the Applicant's conduct unreasonable, including ignoring page limits, attempting to argue issues beyond time limits, misrepresenting hardship, and making unfounded allegations of fraud.

However, full recovery costs were denied because the Respondent's offer to settle was a final offer on equalization and not specific to the motion in question.

The Respondent was awarded partial indemnity costs of $5,500, inclusive of HST and disbursements, to be deducted from the Applicant's share of the matrimonial home.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside Minutes of Settlement and order the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The applicant alleged the respondent materially misrepresented his assets prior to signing the Minutes.

The court found that the conflicting affidavit evidence regarding the respondent's assets could not be resolved on a short motion.

Furthermore, the respondent had complied with the Minutes by obtaining a mortgage commitment to buy out the applicant's interest.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the respondent to reduce spousal support.

The respondent sought full recovery costs, citing success and the applicant's alleged unreasonable behaviour.

The applicant resisted, claiming good faith negotiation attempts were hindered by the respondent.

The court found the respondent was the successful party on the underlying motion, entitling him to costs under Family Law Rule 24(1).

However, the respondent's offers to settle, which included significant and non-severable costs demands, were deemed to have impeded settlement.

Consequently, the court reduced the quantum of costs awarded to the respondent from an estimated partial recovery of $6,000 to $4,000.

The Applicant brought an urgent 14B motion for child support and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the issues insufficiently urgent to be heard during the COVID-19 court closure, which required "dire" financial circumstances.

The court noted that the parties had previously agreed to delay the sale of the home and that the Applicant had not complied with disclosure requirements.

The respondent (payor) brought a motion for a temporary reduction in spousal support due to a material change in circumstances, specifically a significant reduction in income from $102,000 to $86,000 per year following the elimination of overtime and on-call duties at Ontario Hydro.

The applicant (recipient) opposed, arguing the change was not material or was foreseeable.

The court applied a four-part test for interim variations (prima facie case, hardship, urgency, clean hands) and found that the respondent had established a strong prima facie case for a material change, demonstrated hardship, acted with urgency, and had clean hands.

The motion was granted, and spousal support was temporarily reduced from $2,275 to $1,775 per month, retroactive to November 1, 2019.