Steven L. Nagy

The court determined costs following a 14-day trial where the applicant was substantially successful on custody and access.

The applicant sought costs, and the respondent, self-represented, opposed.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, considering the purposes of costs, the parties' behaviour, offers to settle, and legal fees.

While the applicant was largely successful and served an offer to settle, her behaviour was found to be provocative and antagonistic, leading to a 25% reduction in her awarded costs.

The respondent's behaviour was also criticized, but less severely.

The court assessed legal fees and disbursements, ultimately ordering the respondent to pay the applicant $54,594.82 in total costs and disbursements.

The applicant was previously successful in her application for dependant support from her late spouse's estate.

She sought costs from the respondent sister, who had contested the application and made unfounded allegations of misappropriation.

The respondent sought costs from the estate.

The court noted that while the litigation arose partly because the intestate failed to make adequate provision for his spouse, awarding costs from the estate would effectively penalize the successful applicant, who was awarded the entire residue.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $13,500.

The applicant, the common law spouse of the intestate for approximately two decades, applied for support from the estate under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The intestate died suddenly, leaving an estate of modest value and no other dependants.

The court found that the intestate had not made adequate provision for the applicant's proper support, considering her age, health, and accustomed standard of living.

Applying the moral duty framework, the court ordered the entire residue of the estate to be conveyed to the applicant.

The father brought a motion to change a 2006 final order to terminate his child support obligations for his two adult children.

The mother opposed the termination for one child and sought reimbursement for extraordinary expenses and spousal support.

The court found that both children were no longer dependents under the Family Law Act, as they had completed their initial post-secondary education or were no longer enrolled full-time.

The mother's claims for extraordinary expenses were dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction for non-dependents, insufficient evidence, and the father's overpayment of child support.

The spousal support claim was also dismissed as it was not properly pleaded, delayed, and lacked merit on compensatory or need-based grounds.

The father's motion to terminate child support was granted.

Following marital separation, the applicant sought determination of retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, alleging that the respondent understated his income and diverted earnings through a corporation he solely controlled.

The court found the corporation had been created to disguise the respondent’s true income and pierced the corporate veil, attributing the corporation’s contract income directly to the respondent for support purposes.

The respondent’s income was fixed significantly higher than the salary he drew from the corporation, and arrears of support exceeding $160,000 were calculated based on the corrected income figures.

The court also confirmed that an adult child with severe autism remained a “child of the marriage” under the Divorce Act and was entitled to ongoing support.

The corporation was added as a party, ordered jointly liable for support obligations, and required to provide ongoing financial disclosure.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend its statement of claim to substitute the individual carrying on business under certain style names as the proper plaintiff instead of the corporate plaintiff.

The defendants opposed the amendment, arguing that it constituted the addition of a new party after the limitation period had expired and that the matter had already been set down for trial.

The court held that the amendment was properly characterized as the correction of a misnomer under s. 21(2) of the Limitations Act and not the addition of a new party.

As the defendants knew the identity of the contracting party and suffered no prejudice that could not be remedied, the amendment was permitted.

The motion was granted, but the plaintiff was denied costs due to delay and ordered to pay costs to the defendants.

The parties separated in 2008 and settled property issues, leaving custody, access, and child support to be determined.

The mother sought joint custody with final decision-making authority, while the father sought joint custody without such authority and increased access to reach a 40 percent threshold.

The court ordered joint custody with no final decision-making authority to either party, finding they had a history of cooperative decision-making.

The court maintained the children's primary residence with the mother and established a detailed access schedule for the father.

The court also ordered the father to pay ongoing child support of $1,141.25 per month and retroactive child support fixed at $12,000.

Following separation after an 18‑year marriage, the court determined issues of child support, spousal support, equalization of debts, and division of a pension.

Each parent had primary residence of one child.

Applying the Child Support Guidelines, the court ordered offset child support based on the parties’ respective incomes, with payments commencing January 1, 2011.

The court also ordered spousal support of $500 per month, recognizing the significant income disparity and long-term marriage but declining to equalize net disposable incomes.

The respondent was held responsible for certain matrimonial debts and cash withdrawals and ordered to reimburse the applicant for utilities and half of joint debts, with pension valuation and division to occur under the Pension Benefits Act.