Steve André Serge Duplain

The applicant brought a motion seeking extensive financial disclosure from the respondent and third-party corporate entities, alleging the respondent had significant control over family-related corporations.

The respondent contended he was merely an employee or minority shareholder with no control.

The court found that the respondent exercised direct or indirect influence or control in fact over the family corporations, largely due to the respondent's and third parties' failure to provide sufficient evidence clarifying his role and the corporate restructuring.

The court granted the applicant's disclosure order, requiring the respondent and several corporate entities to provide comprehensive financial and corporate records to enable a full assessment of the respondent's financial interests for equalization and income for child and spousal support.

The respondent's cross-motion for the applicant's travel information was adjourned, and one specific third-party disclosure request was denied as speculative.

The respondent, Octave Tshiani-Levine, brought a motion to change a final order, seeking a reduction in ongoing child support due to undue hardship and claiming overpayment of child support, while disputing arrears.

The applicant, Lanie Hormillosa, sought retroactive arrears and ongoing child support.

The court found a material change in circumstances but rejected the respondent's undue hardship claim due to insufficient financial disclosure and lack of corroborating evidence for his medical condition.

The court awarded the applicant $34,383 in child support arrears and $717 per month in ongoing child support.

This endorsement addresses the respondent mother's request for costs following a three-day trial on parenting issues, where she was deemed the successful party, and for a subsequent court appearance necessitated by the applicant father's counsel's lack of communication regarding child support.

The court found the father's conduct prior to and during the litigation, including late filings and failure to communicate on child support, to be unreasonable and in bad faith.

Considering the mother's more favorable offer to settle and the father's conduct, the court awarded the mother substantial costs for the trial and full recovery costs for the June 20th appearance, while also considering the father's ability to pay.

The Applicant Mother brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Respondent Father's Motion to Change and an order for sole decision-making responsibility for their youngest child, C. The Father's Motion to Change sought sole custody and alleged parental alienation.

The court denied the Father's motion due to lack of leave.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding C's parenting, rejecting the Father's parental alienation claims as unsupported and attributing the strained parent-child relationships to the Father's own conduct.

Given a material change in circumstances and C's clear, independent views and preferences (at nearly 17 years old) to remain with the Mother, the court granted the Mother sole decision-making responsibility, maintaining the status quo in C's best interest.

The trial addressed two main issues: the respondent's claim for legal costs and disbursements incurred between 2012 and 2018, and the proper division of the parties' respective pensions.

The court dismissed the respondent's claim for costs due to credibility issues, lack of evidence, and inappropriate conduct, including dishonesty.

Regarding pensions, the court ordered the division of both parties' pensions based on gross values, rejecting the respondent's request to include pre-marital accruals for the applicant's pension and setting interest accumulation from March 1, 2017, due to shared responsibility for delays, but primarily attributing delay to the respondent's dishonesty.

This family law motion addressed multiple issues including decision-making responsibilities, parenting time, extracurricular activities, international travel, child support, financial disclosure, and the return of personal property.

The court ordered shared decision-making and a weekly shared parenting schedule, accommodating the mother's medical treatments.

Extracurricular activities were limited to a reasonable number and geographic scope.

The mother's request to travel to Mexico with the children was denied due to safety concerns, but travel within North America was permitted with proper notice.

The father's request for child support was refused pending complete financial disclosure, which he was ordered to provide.

The court also provided directives on official documents and the return of the mother's personal belongings.

The parties, parents of three daughters, sought resolution on child support overpayments, special and extraordinary expenses (s. 7 expenses), and summer access.

The court found the applicant's s. 7 expense claims reasonable but accepted the respondent's revised calculation of child support overpayment, resulting in a net amount owed to the respondent.

The respondent's request for increased summer access was denied.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final order, seeking to limit the respondent mother to supervised access, remove the right of first refusal, eliminate holiday access, and obtain the right to travel with the children without the mother's consent.

The father alleged a material change in circumstances due to the mother's ongoing conflict, baseless allegations of abuse, and acts of contempt.

The mother opposed the motion, denying risk and contempt, and sought increased access.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the detrimental impact of the mother's behavior on the children and her deliberate contempt for refusing to sign travel consent.

The court varied the access schedule, reducing the mother's access to the son to alternate Saturdays and to the daughter to Friday evening until Saturday afternoon, and permitted the father to travel with the children without the mother's consent.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following an interim order that expanded the applicant father's access to his daughter.

The father sought costs on a full indemnity basis, arguing the mother was unreasonable regarding access and caused delays.

The mother argued for divided success, noting the final order was more aligned with her offer regarding the timing of overnight visits.

The court found divided success but determined the father was more successful overall in obtaining meaningful access.

Applying principles of costs, including partial indemnification, encouraging settlement, and discouraging inappropriate behaviour, the court ordered the mother to pay the father $1000 in costs within nine months, considering the importance of the case, the reasonableness of the parties' behaviour, and the proportionality of the award.

The applicant sought to set aside paragraphs 4 and 5 of a final order related to property division and mortgage payments, arguing that she believed the matter had settled and was unaware of the uncontested hearing.

The court applied the factors for setting aside default judgments, finding the applicant's non-attendance plausible due to a perceived settlement and the respondent's lack of candour regarding prior agreements.

The motion was granted in part, setting aside the pension division and mortgage payment reimbursement, but not the special expenses.

The applicant's pleadings were reinstated, and the matter was listed for trial.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order to place A.S. in the custody of his father, L.S., in Calgary.

The mother, K.F., opposed the motion and sought custody or a supervision order.

The court denied K.F.'s request for an adjournment, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding her ability to parent due to persistent mental health issues and an unstable lifestyle.

While finding that A.S.'s removal from K.F.'s care was necessary and that placement with L.S. was in A.S.'s best interests, the court deferred a final order pending an updated assessment of L.S.'s family by Calgary Child Welfare Services.

An interim order was made placing A.S. in the temporary care and custody of L.S.

This is a costs endorsement following an eight-day family law trial.

Both the applicant (father) and respondent (mother) sought costs, but the court found there was "divided success" on the main issues of custody and parenting arrangements.

Neither party obtained an order more favourable than their Rule 18(14) offers to settle.

The court also noted issues with vague offers and the failure to deal with costs at each step of the litigation as per Rule 24(10) of the Family Law Rules.

Ultimately, the court ordered no costs, with each party bearing their own costs for the trial, case conference, and settlement conference.

The Applicant father sought joint custody, equal parenting time, and a change in child support.

The Respondent mother sought sole custody, reduced access, table child support, sharing of s. 7 expenses, reimbursement of Child Tax Credit and daycare costs, and a restraining order.

The court found a material change in circumstances, awarded joint custody to both parents, and maintained the existing parenting schedule (not equal time for father, not reduced for mother).

The father was ordered to pay table child support and a proportionate share of s. 7 expenses, and to reimburse the mother for half of a Child Tax Credit payment and agreed daycare/coin costs.

The mother's request for a restraining order was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of fear for safety.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought summary judgment to place three children (E.S., J.S., R.S.) in the legal custody of their maternal grandparents, with discretionary access for the parents.

The mother opposed, seeking the children's return or a supervision order.

The court dismissed the Society's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues for trial.

These issues included the admissibility and apparent contradiction of medical evidence regarding the children's initial physical condition and developmental delays, and a significant change in the mother's bail conditions which allowed her to present a plan of care.

The court emphasized that summary judgment requires a full evidentiary record and should not be granted where material facts are in dispute or credibility is an issue.

The Father (applicant) sought costs of $65,000 after successfully obtaining sole custody in a motion to change.

The Mother (respondent) argued for no costs due to her modest means and the resolution of some issues prior to trial.

The court, applying Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules and s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, found the Father presumptively entitled to costs but reduced the amount to $30,000, payable over six years, considering the parties' compromises, the Mother's financial situation, and the importance but not excessive complexity of the issues.

The court declined to deem the costs as additional support enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The Father brought a motion to change a divorce order, seeking sole custody and a variation of child support, citing the Mother's persistent unfounded allegations of abuse, non-compliance with court orders, and interference with the children's education and health.

The Mother sought to maintain joint custody or obtain sole custody for herself.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the deleterious effects of parental conflict on the children, the Mother's persistent unfounded allegations, and her lack of insight into the children's needs.

Sole custody and primary residence were granted to the Father, with weekly access to the Mother.

The applicant sought spousal support under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act despite a prior separation agreement providing for mutual spousal support releases in exchange for her receiving the respondent’s share of condominium equity.

Applying the two‑stage framework in Miglin v. Miglin, the court accepted that the agreement was properly negotiated but considered whether subsequent circumstances justified departing from it.

The court found that the applicant’s severe and chronic mental health deterioration after the agreement represented a significant departure from the circumstances reasonably contemplated when the agreement was executed, undermining the assumption that she would remain self‑sufficient.

Although the agreement retained weight given the objectives of finality and certainty, strict enforcement would not adequately address the applicant’s economic hardship.

Considering the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and the lump sum already received, the court ordered an additional lump sum spousal support payment.

Following the dismissal of the respondent’s motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the applicant’s claim for support, the court considered costs.

The applicant sought costs as the successful party under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The respondent argued no costs should be awarded because the motion narrowed issues for trial and because the applicant abandoned a motion for interim support.

The court held that the unsuccessful party should ordinarily pay costs and found no reason to depart from that rule.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $2,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules seeking dismissal of a spousal support claim advanced despite a prior separation agreement containing mutual waivers of support and a property transfer.

The applicant limited her claim to the second stage analysis under Miglin, asserting that current circumstances, including alleged health issues preventing employment, constituted a significant departure from the range of outcomes contemplated by the parties.

The court held that the applicant would need to establish that current circumstances were inconsistent with the objectives of s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act.

Although the court expressed serious doubt that the applicant could meet this threshold on the affidavit record, it concluded that a genuine issue requiring a trial remained.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed and the matter was directed to proceed to trial on the limited issue identified.

A motion and cross‑motion addressed whether a parent must contribute child support for an adult child pursuing post‑secondary education.

The respondent argued the adult child had withdrawn from parental control and squandered prior educational opportunities, while also asserting inability to pay.

The court found the adult child had not withdrawn from parental control and was enrolled in a serious course of studies.

Applying principles from the Family Law Act and the Child Support Guidelines, the court ordered ongoing support based on the respondent’s income together with contributions from the applicant and the child.

Conditions were imposed requiring proof of attendance, disclosure of income and educational progress.