Sonia Smee

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 20(5) of the Family Law Rules seeking an order to question Dr. Brad Booth, a psychiatrist retained by the respondent, for a maximum of five hours prior to trial.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the applicant had not met the statutory test.

The court found that all three prongs of the Rule 20(5) test were satisfied: it would be unfair to proceed without questioning; the information was not easily available by other means; and the questioning would not cause unacceptable delay or undue expense.

The court granted the motion, permitting five hours of questioning on August 18, 2025, and awarded costs to the applicant.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for access to her granddaughter, the respondent sought full indemnity costs of $5,968.

The court found that while the applicant acted unreasonably in bringing the motion close to trial, she did not act in bad faith.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality under the Family Law Rules, the court rejected the claim for full indemnity costs, deducted fees unrelated to the motion, and awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs fixed at $2,250.

The applicant, a paternal grandmother, brought a motion for parenting time with her granddaughter, whom she had not seen for 19 months.

The motion was filed 48 days after a court order had granted exceptional permission to bring it within 45 days.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the late filing was not excused given the strict conditions of the prior order.

Furthermore, it was deemed not to be in the child's best interests to re-establish temporary contact so close to trial, especially given a significant factual dispute regarding the cessation of contact, which the trial judge would be better equipped to resolve.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $54,767.35 following a trial where she was successful in obtaining spousal support.

The respondent argued each party should bear their own costs.

The court found the respondent was not a credible witness, engaged in bad faith conduct, and caused delays through late disclosure.

However, the court reduced the costs award because the applicant withdrew a $36,028.69 debt claim at the end of the trial.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $40,000 in costs, enforceable as spousal support by the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant sought divorce, spousal support (retroactive, quantum, duration, security), repayment of $36,028.69, and removal from a corporation.

The court granted the divorce, found the applicant entitled to both compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, and ordered retroactive and ongoing periodic support based on imputed income for the respondent.

The court dismissed the claims for security for support and removal from the corporation.

The respondent's credibility was significantly undermined throughout the proceedings.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking a week-on/week-off summer parenting schedule for her 12-year-old daughter and procedural relief to strike portions of the respondent father's affidavit and an exhibit.

The court denied the mother's request for a week-on/week-off schedule due to insufficient evidence, instead granting her a single five-day period of additional parenting time and one make-up overnight.

The court granted the mother's procedural requests, striking a psychologist's letter and several paragraphs from the father's affidavit for failing to meet evidentiary requirements or referencing settlement conference communications.

The mother's request for a finding of parental alienation was denied without prejudice due to lack of proper notice.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's Answer for failing to comply with a previous court order requiring financial disclosure, payment of costs, and spousal support.

The respondent provided the disclosure and paid the costs shortly before the motion hearing.

The court declined to strike the pleadings, noting it is a remedy of last resort.

However, because the respondent resides outside Ontario and was significantly late in his compliance, the court ordered him to register a $28,000 security interest against his property and pay $5,000 for interim disbursements to allow the applicant's expert to complete a business valuation.