S. Lawrence Liquornik

The father (A.N.) brought a long motion seeking to retrospectively vary a temporary order from November 21, 2022, which required him to pay $5,134.24 per month for matrimonial home expenses and the mother's car payments, to $1,000.00 per month, citing health reasons and inability to work.

The mother (D.N.) opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding he failed to satisfy the four-part test to vary a temporary order on an interim basis, specifically lacking "clean hands," a strong prima facie case, urgency, or hardship.

The court noted significant credibility issues with the father's claims of inability to pay and the mother's alleged hidden income, concluding these issues require a full trial.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary a temporary parenting order, seeking primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility for the parties' 4-year-old child, with supervised parenting time for the respondent mother.

The mother had repeatedly denied the father parenting time based on unsubstantiated allegations of physical and sexual abuse, and drugging, which were investigated and closed by police and child protection services.

The court found compelling circumstances to change the status quo prior to trial, noting the mother's failure to support the child's relationship with the father and the emotional harm caused by her conduct.

The court granted the father's motion, awarding him primary residence and sole decision-making, and ordered the mother to have supervised parenting time.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking a parenting schedule for his two-year-old child.

The respondent mother sought a highly restricted, supervised, and gradual reintroduction of parenting time, citing past volatility and criminal charges against the father.

The court found no evidence of risk to the child from the father, noting that the mother had been found to be the aggressor in previous incidents and had unfairly created the recent lack of contact.

The court preferred and ordered the father's proposed parenting plan, which included a reasonably expeditious path towards shared parenting time, including overnights, dismissing the mother's more restrictive proposal.

The applicant mother brought a motion under the Hague Convention seeking the return of her 12-month-old child from Mexico to Ontario.

The parties had travelled to Mexico temporarily, but the respondent father subsequently refused to return the child to the mother.

The court applied the hybrid approach to determine habitual residence and found that the child was habitually resident in Ontario.

The court concluded that the father wrongfully retained the child and ordered the child's immediate return to Ontario.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion for a stay of an interim relocation order, the applicant sought full recovery costs of over $12,000.

The respondent argued for a reduced quantum of $3,000 due to recent job loss and financial strain.

The court found no bad faith to justify full recovery but awarded costs at 75% of full recovery to sanction the respondent's unreasonable behaviour.

Costs were fixed at $9,600, with a direction that failure to pay would not bar the respondent from future participation in the proceeding.

Following a five-day family law trial primarily concerning spousal support, both parties sought costs.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $113,000, while the respondent sought $17,000.

The court found that both parties took unreasonable positions that prolonged the trial, resulting in divided success.

The respondent was awarded a lump sum of $46,000 for spousal support, far less than the $500,000 claimed, while the applicant was successful in arguing that support should be based on income rather than assets.

Given the divided success, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The parties separated after a 25-year marriage.

The respondent husband, who was disabled and unable to work, sought $500,000 in lump sum spousal support out of the applicant wife's assets, while the applicant sought child support for their adult son and dismissal of the spousal support claim.

The court found the respondent was entitled to non-compensatory spousal support due to his medical condition and financial need.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and considering the applicant's income-producing assets, the court ordered the applicant to pay a lump sum of $46,000 to achieve a clean break.

The claims for child support and repayment of joint funds were dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following a 15-day motion to change custody and access.

The father sought full indemnity costs of $213,653.63 after successfully obtaining reinstatement of unsupervised access to the child.

The mother opposed costs, arguing the father lacked standing due to prior breaches of cost orders and bankruptcy proceedings.

The court awarded the father $150,000 in costs, finding him the successful party but reducing the award due to his unreasonable conduct during the litigation, including identifying himself in media coverage, failing to exercise access for extended periods, breaching supervised access orders, and surreptitiously recording the child's therapist.

The respondent husband brought a motion to remove the applicant wife's counsel of record due to a conflict of interest.

Prior to being retained by the wife, the wife's counsel had multiple discussions with the husband's counsel regarding the strategic use of confidential information related to the valuation of the wife's business interests.

Applying the test from MacDonald Estate v. Martin, the court found that confidential strategic information had been imparted and that a reasonably-informed member of the public would not be satisfied that no use of this information would occur.

The motion to remove counsel was granted.

This is a motion to change a 2009 custody and access order in a highly contentious family law dispute involving a child with alleged food allergies.

The mother sought to impose indefinite supervised access on the father, claiming he failed to comply with medical directives regarding the child's purported life-threatening allergy to tartrazine (yellow food dye).

The father sought reinstatement of the original parenting plan or, alternatively, sole custody.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the child's medical condition and the father's two lengthy absences from the child's life (totalling 16 months).

However, the court rejected the mother's request for indefinite supervised access, finding no credible evidence that the child faced physical risk in the father's unsupervised care.

The court reinstated substantially the original parenting plan with modifications, granting the father regular unsupervised access including overnight visits and holidays.

The court found the mother had undermined the father-child relationship through hyper-vigilance and over-protectiveness, while the father demonstrated poor judgment through his absences and oppositional conduct.

The child's best interests were served by maintaining the mother's custody while restoring meaningful access to the father.

The court issued supplementary reasons for judgment following a trial, addressing outstanding issues regarding life insurance as security for support, the timing of retroactive child and spousal support payments, and post-trial accounting.

The court found the evidentiary record deficient on the life insurance issue and ordered further affidavit evidence and potential cross-examination to resolve it.

For retroactive child support, the court fixed arrears at $86,133.54 and ordered payment in four installments by September 1, 2017.

For retroactive spousal support, arrears were fixed at $183,147.00, to be paid in 60 monthly installments of $3,052.45, commencing November 1, 2016.

The decision on costs was deferred until the life insurance issue is resolved.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking interim joint custody and an access schedule in accordance with a s. 30 assessment report by Dr. Butkowsky.

The applicant father opposed, arguing the report's recommendations should not be implemented before trial and that the 14-year-old son wished to reside primarily with him.

The court found no 'exceptional circumstances' requiring immediate implementation of the report's recommendations, but considered the assessor's observational evidence.

The court ordered that the son reside primarily with the father but have regular weekend access with the mother, overriding the son's stated preference based on his observed comfort with her.

The father was also ordered to pay child support, spousal support, and his proportionate share of the assessment report costs.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following several motions concerning a final consent order in a family law matter.

The original order granted custody of two sons to the father and prevented the mother's access.

The motions involved the Chief of Police seeking to remove a police enforcement clause, the mother seeking to change custody or have no custody order, and the father seeking enforcement and disclosure.

The court ultimately rescinded the final order in its entirety, declaring no person had statutory or non-statutory custody or access rights.

The mother, deemed successful in setting aside the order, sought full costs from the father.

The father argued for no costs, citing divided success and the mother's past parental alienation.

The court, exercising its discretion, awarded no costs, considering the mother's success but also her lack of effort to promote compliance with the previous order and her history of alienation.

The parties separated after a 13-year cohabitation.

The central issue at trial was the determination of both parties' incomes for calculating child and spousal support.

The applicant sought to impute significant corporate pre-tax income to the respondent, while the respondent argued for a lower income based on legitimate business retention of earnings.

The court applied the Brophy test and declined to attribute corporate pre-tax income to the respondent, but imputed a higher income due to non-disclosure.

The court also imputed income to the applicant, finding she was intentionally under-employed after a reasonable period for retraining.

The court ordered ongoing child and spousal support, calculated retroactive support arrears after applying significant credits for voluntary payments, fixed the duration of spousal support at 11 years, and affirmed its jurisdiction under the Divorce Act to order life insurance as security for support.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking various interim orders, including the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home, disclosure of the applicant father's medical records regarding his work leave, child support, and a change in the child's school from Markham to Toronto.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, finding no evidence that the child would be negatively impacted and noting the father's financial difficulties.

The court also ordered the father to provide medical documentation regarding his leave of absence.

The request to change the child's school was dismissed as there was no material change in circumstances, but the interim parenting schedule was slightly modified to reduce the child's travel time.

Interim child support and payment of household expenses were also ordered.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking various interim orders, including the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home, medical disclosure regarding the applicant father's leave of absence, a change in the child's school, and interim child support.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, finding no evidence that the child would be negatively impacted and noting the father's financial difficulties in maintaining the property.

The court also ordered the father to provide medical disclosure and pay interim child support.

The mother's request to change the child's school was dismissed due to a lack of material change in circumstances, though the interim parenting schedule was slightly modified to reduce the child's travel time.

A ruling on a jurisdictional question in a family law matter concerning a motion to change a final consent order regarding custody and access of a child.

The applicant sought to determine whether the Ontario Court of Justice or the Superior Court of Justice had jurisdiction to hear the motion to change.

The respondent had brought multiple motions in the Superior Court on grounds of urgency, despite the original application having been commenced in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court held that the Ontario Court of Justice retained exclusive jurisdiction as the court of first instance, and that the Superior Court orders were made per incuriam and had no force and effect.

Following a motion to vary support arising from a change in a child’s residence, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party had served a formal offer to settle under the Family Law Rules that was more favourable to the responding party than the result obtained at the motion.

Applying Rules 18(14) and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that the moving party was the successful party and was presumptively entitled to costs, including full indemnity costs from the date of the formal offer.

The court rejected arguments that the offer was ambiguous and found no unreasonable conduct by either party that would justify departing from the usual costs consequences.

Total costs of $10,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST were awarded, payable partly by set‑off against funds owing under the parties’ separation agreement.

The applicant brought a motion to vary child and spousal support provisions contained in a separation agreement following a material change in circumstances when one child moved from the respondent’s residence to the applicant’s residence, creating a split custody arrangement.

The court considered the appropriate retroactive date for varying support, the method for calculating income where the payor’s earnings fluctuated, and whether support should continue to be calculated based on the prior year’s income as contemplated by the separation agreement.

The court held that the agreement did not mandate automatic recalculation based on the previous year’s income and that the material change justified a new approach to determining support.

For interim purposes, the court used actual income for past years and averaged income over three years for ongoing support, while applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Temporary child and spousal support amounts were ordered retroactive to May 1, 2012 and adjusted for 2013 and ongoing periods.

Following dismissal of an application brought under the Arbitration Act, 1991 seeking to set aside an arbitrator’s jurisdiction in a spousal support mediation-arbitration process, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs while the applicant argued for partial indemnity.

The court applied the principles governing costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing proportionality and the result achieved.

The court found the application unreasonable, particularly given the applicant’s contractual commitment to the mediation-arbitration process and a rejected settlement offer.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded, though the amount claimed was reduced as some time billed was excessive.