Steve André Serge Duplain

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 father brought a motion seeking to exercise access to his four daughters following allegations of sexual touching that had led to the suspension of access.

The children had been interviewed by child protection authorities and police, but no criminal charges were laid and the evidentiary record before the court was limited.

The court found the situation troubling due to the prolonged restriction of access and unresolved factual disputes, including potential concerns about alienating behaviour.

The court ordered therapeutic counselling for the children and directed that a social worker supervise a series of structured community visits between the father and the children, followed by continued supervised access.

The matter was scheduled for further case management and the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer was noted.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that two children were in need of protection and an order placing them in the care of their mother and her spouse.

The father sought to have the children returned to his care.

The court found the children in need of protection due to exposure to domestic violence, drug trafficking, weapons, and parental alienation by the father.

The court granted joint custody to the mother and her spouse, with no access to the father, finding that the father's anti-social behaviour and refusal to follow court orders posed a significant risk of emotional and physical harm to the children.

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.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, all parties agreed the children remained in need of protection due to parental incapacity and sought a permanent care plan under s. 57.1.

Competing plans proposed placement with maternal grandparents, with the paternal grandmother, or maintenance of split placements.

After reviewing extensive evidence on caregiving capacity, family conflict, cultural and religious issues, and the children’s best interests, the court ordered shared legal custody between the maternal grandparents and the paternal grandmother on an alternating weekly schedule.

The court also set terms for religious holidays, birthday exchanges, and transition arrangements.

On a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act, the child protection authority sought Crown wardship without access for three young children with significant behavioural and developmental needs.

The parents proposed that the children be returned to the father under a supervision order.

The court reviewed extensive evidence of long‑standing child protection involvement, unstable housing, chronic household disorder, parental conflict, substance use, and the parents’ inability to consistently meet the children’s complex needs despite significant community support.

While acknowledging the father’s commitment and efforts, the court concluded he lacked the capacity, resources, and organization required to safely parent the children long term.

The court determined that permanency through adoption best served the children’s interests and ordered Crown wardship without parental access.