Stephen Eaton

In an uncontested family law trial, the applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, child support, and a divorce.

The respondent father failed to participate in the proceedings and had not seen the child in two years.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, imputed a minimum wage income to the respondent for child support purposes, and issued a no-contact order.

The court also granted the divorce and awarded costs to the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion for exclusive possession of the jointly-owned matrimonial home and an interim restraining order against the respondent.

The respondent had recently returned to the home from the UK and engaged in intimidating and verbally abusive behaviour towards the applicant and their adult children.

The court found that the applicant and children had reasonable grounds to fear for their psychological and physical safety.

The motion for a restraining order and exclusive possession was granted.

The respondent brought a motion to enforce a Consent Order regarding the annual adjustment of child support.

The applicant argued that the respondent's non-taxable disability income should be imputed in addition to his Line 15000 income.

The court found that the clear wording of the Consent Order precluded the inclusion of income other than the respondent's Line 15000 income.

The applicant was found to be in breach of the Consent Order for failing to sign the necessary documents to adjust the support amount, and was ordered to comply and pay costs.

The appellant father appealed a trial decision dismissing his Hague Convention application for the return of the parties' three children to Michigan and assuming jurisdiction under section 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The trial judge found that the father did not have custody rights at the time of removal and that returning the children to Michigan without their primary caregiver mother, who lacked immigration status to return, would expose them to a grave risk of harm from the abusive father.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the risk of harm or her decision not to defer to the Michigan court.

The applicant father commenced litigation seeking shared parenting and alleging parental alienation after the children refused overnight visits.

Following an assessment that found the children's views were independent and based on the father's behaviour, the matter settled with the father receiving daytime visits only.

The respondent mother sought costs as the successful party.

The court found the mother was the successful party, as the father's claims were unreasonable and he ultimately capitulated.

The court awarded the mother $20,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements.

Following a ten‑day family law trial concerning custody and access of two children and an unsuccessful contempt motion, the court addressed costs.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs exceeding $69,000, while the respondent argued success was divided and requested no costs or set‑offs for prior awards and assessment expenses.

Applying the presumption under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules but recognizing the court’s discretion, the court found partial success for both parties but greater success for the applicant.

The court rejected certain claimed costs, required the parties to share the expense of an expert assessment, and considered the potential financial impact of a costs award on the children.

A reduced lump‑sum costs award of $20,000 was ordered payable by the respondent.

A mother brought an application to vary a prior custody order and sought sole custody of two adolescent children amid a high-conflict parenting dispute marked by allegations of parental alienation.

The father sought a finding of contempt alleging the mother failed to ensure the children attended access visits.

The court found elements of both alienation and justified estrangement, concluding the children’s reluctance to see the father was influenced by both parents’ conduct and the father’s rigid parenting style.

Given the parents’ inability to cooperate and the children’s expressed preferences, sole custody was granted to the mother with defined access to the father.

The contempt motion was dismissed because the father failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mother intentionally breached prior access orders.