S. Sikora

Costs endorsement following a three-day family law trial in which the applicant obtained a Final Order on parenting issues.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $24,577.27 based on her Offer to Settle and the respondent's unreasonable conduct.

The court found the applicant's Offer to Settle met the requirements of Rule 24(12) FLR, entitling her to full recovery of costs.

However, applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness from Beaver v. Hill and Lawrence v. Lawrence, and considering the respondent's unreasonable behaviour including overholding the child and breaching court orders, the court awarded the applicant 80-85% of her costs, totalling $20,000 all-inclusive payable within 30 days.

The applicant sought equalization of net family property following the dissolution of her marriage.

The respondent's pleadings were struck for failing to fulfill financial disclosure obligations under the Family Law Rules, and the matter proceeded as an uncontested trial.

The court undertook a detailed valuation of the parties' real property holdings, farm equipment, and the respondent's LIRA pension, relying on MPAC assessments, appraisals, and available bank statements in the absence of disclosure from the respondent.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $229,896.35 as an equalization payment, less two advances totalling $69,657.21, for a net payment of $160,239.14, together with prejudgment interest and costs.

The respondent in a family law application moved under r. 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to set aside an order noting her in default for failing to serve and file an answer.

The court held it had no jurisdiction to set aside the noting of default under r. 25(19) because the respondent had proper notice and was physically present at the motion.

The court also declined to adopt a procedure analogous to r. 19.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding no gap in the FLRs warranted filling.

Even if jurisdiction existed, the court would not have exercised its discretion in the respondent's favour given her unexplained and unreasonable failure to comply with the rules over nearly a year.

The applicant wife brought a motion for the interim sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home.

The respondent husband opposed the sale and brought a cross-motion seeking to have the applicant's interest transferred to him or to be granted exclusive possession.

The court applied the principles for partition and sale in family law cases, finding the applicant had a prima facie right to sale and the respondent failed to show his family law claims would be unfairly prejudiced.

The court noted it lacked jurisdiction to compel one joint tenant to sell to the other.

The motion for sale was granted, with each party to receive 25% of the net proceeds and the balance held in trust pending trial.

The applicant mother moved for week-about access to her two children, who had been living with the respondent father since separation.

The father opposed, citing the mother's ongoing substance abuse and mental health issues, which had led to CAS involvement.

The court found that the current access arrangements lacked structure and required a change.

However, due to the mother's ongoing issues and the negative impact on the children, the court denied week-about access and instead ordered a temporary weekend access regime.

The mother moved to stay a temporary order granting the father supervised access to two children pending an appeal.

The father had previous convictions for sexual interference involving young girls.

The court granted the stay regarding the female child, finding that the motion judge lacked sufficient evidence about the circumstances of the father's prior convictions to ensure the proposed supervision would adequately protect the child.

The stay was granted without prejudice to the father providing further evidence.