Sharon E. Hassan

The respondent (moving party) brought a motion to adjourn the appellant's appeal, partially lift an automatic stay for an equalization payment, and seek security for costs and an extension of time to file her factum.

The appellant had failed to comply with spousal support orders and had taken actions to potentially frustrate enforcement of the equalization payment.

The court found the appellant's non-compliance with support orders flagrant and ordered the appeal stayed until arrears were paid.

It also partially lifted the stay on the equalization payment for the undisputed amount.

This decision addresses the quantum of costs following a successful trial for the applicant.

The applicant sought over $105,000 in total costs, while the respondent argued for a limit of $25,000, citing financial hardship and proportionality.

The court, applying Rule 57 factors and the principle of proportionality, awarded the applicant $40,000 for fees and $7,500 for disbursements plus HST, finding the applicant's requested amount excessive despite the reasonableness of counsel's hourly rate and the applicant's success at trial.

Two motions were heard by the respondents D.L. and T.S. in a child protection proceeding.

The first motion sought to vary the interim access order by increasing access to the children and permitting community visits.

The second motion sought an order prohibiting access by S.M.L.B. (the biological mother of one child) to J.L. The court found a material change in circumstances and granted a modest increase in access to D.L. and T.S., conditional on their participation in parenting programming.

The court rejected the motion to prohibit access by S.M.L.B., finding that supervised access was in the child's best interests and should continue.

This endorsement resolves a preliminary objection regarding the participation of foster parents, D.T. and S.C., in a motion to add prospective kin placement D.M. and R.A. as party respondents in a child protection application.

The court examined the definition of 'hearing' under the Family Law Rules and the Courts of Justice Act, concluding that an interlocutory motion constitutes a 'hearing,' thereby entitling the foster parents to participate.

This case involved claims for divorce, equalization, and spousal support.

The parties resolved the divorce and equalization issues by consent.

The remaining issue was the quantum of lump sum spousal support.

The applicant, a 55-year-old permanently disabled individual, sought a $198,000 lump sum, arguing for imputation of income to the respondent and deviation from the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG).

The respondent, a 60-year-old retiree, argued against income imputation and proposed a lump sum between $32,000 and $58,000 based on SSAG.

The court declined to impute income to the respondent, finding his retirement involuntary and his earning capacity limited.

Instead of deviating from SSAG, the court extended the duration of support for calculation purposes, ordering the respondent to pay a lump sum of $76,100.

No costs were awarded.

This case involved a child protection application by the Children's Aid Society.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the child in need of protection, despite the mother's cousin (SD2) not consenting.

The parents (SD1 and N.C.) consented to joint custody with the father having primary care.

The court then addressed SD2's separate motions for a s. 54 assessment and for access to the child.

Both of SD2's motions were dismissed.

The court found that an assessment was not necessary as there was abundant, consistent, and independent medical evidence, along with the Society's extensive history with SD2, indicating medical child abuse.

Furthermore, the court determined that it was not in the child's best interests for SD2 to have any access, citing the clear causal connection between SD2's care and the child's declining health, and the potential negative impact on the mother's development.

Following an interim custody proceeding where the applicant father was successful in obtaining an order for equal shared parenting, he sought costs of $28,421.

The court declined to award costs, finding that both parents had litigated in good faith out of genuine love for their children.

The court held that imposing a costs award against the respondent mother would negatively impact her financial ability to maintain the shared parenting arrangement, which would ultimately harm the children.

Both parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

In an interim custody dispute, the applicant father sought shared joint custody or sole custody with equal parenting time, while the respondent mother sought sole custody with limited access.

The court found the mother's affidavit evidence less reliable due to audio recordings revealing her verbal and physical abuse.

The court declined to make an interim custody order but established a temporary week-about (equal) residence schedule for the children, emphasizing the Divorce Act's principle of maximum contact with both parents and the children's best interests.

Supplemental orders were issued to facilitate the parenting arrangement and minimize conflict.

The Children's Aid Society sought a temporary care and custody order for a child with complex medical needs, following concerns of "medical child abuse" by the maternal grandmother.

Despite an initial ADR process, a final resolution was not reached.

The court considered a consent order, signed by all parties except the maternal grandmother, to place the child with the father and paternal grandmother under Society supervision.

The court reviewed extensive medical evidence detailing the child's significant improvement after being removed from the maternal grandmother's primary care.

The court granted the temporary supervision order, placing the child with the father and paternal grandmother, with conditions, and ordered supervised access for the maternal grandmother due to the credible medical concerns.

Following an interim custody motion where the applicant maternal aunt was awarded primary care of the child and the respondent father was awarded access, the court determined costs.

The court found the applicant was more successful and presumptively entitled to costs, despite divided success.

Considering the unreasonable behaviour of both parties and the excessive time spent, the court fixed costs at $7,000 payable by the respondent father to the applicant.

Following an interim family law motion regarding custody and access, the court determined costs.

The applicant sought over $32,000 in full recovery costs after obtaining an interim joint custody order with a parenting schedule primarily placing the children with her and permitting one child to attend school in a new location.

The respondent argued for no costs due to divided success.

The court held the applicant achieved some success and was presumptively entitled to costs, but rejected allegations of bad faith and found both parties contributed to excessive costs through voluminous affidavit material and litigation conduct.

Applying the principle of reasonableness and proportionality under the Family Law Rules, the court found the amount claimed to be disproportionate and reduced costs substantially.