Susan B. Arlitt

The applicant father brought a motion for access to his two children, whom he had not seen for nearly a year and a half due to a no-contact order following criminal convictions for assaulting and threatening them.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to appoint the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) and dismiss the access motion pending the OCL's recommendations.

The court ordered that the OCL be requested to ascertain the children's views and preferences, with a private psychotherapist to be engaged if the OCL declined.

The no-contact order was modified to accommodate the involvement of the OCL or the therapist.

Costs were reserved.

The respondent was successful on her motion for temporary spousal support and the sale of the matrimonial home.

She had previously made a settlement offer to accept a lower amount of support.

The applicant had unwisely withheld support to leverage increased access, which was delayed pending an OCL report.

The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $5,000 for fees plus HST and $300 for disbursements.

The applicant father sought to vary child support and access orders.

The respondent mother brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the father's application.

The court dismissed the mother's motion regarding child support, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the father's income and the proper amount of support.

The court adjourned the motion regarding access, ordering an updated report from the Office of the Children's Lawyer to ascertain the 13-year-old child's current wishes before determining if a genuine issue for trial exists.

The court determined costs following a family law motion where success was divided between the parties.

Applying the general principle that costs follow the event but considering the mixed outcome, the court concluded that neither party achieved sufficient success to justify a costs award.

Each party was therefore ordered to bear their own legal costs of the motion.

The applicant brought a family law motion seeking multiple forms of relief relating to child support, section 7 expenses for a child attending university, spousal support arrears, and life insurance security for support obligations.

The court declined to order an ongoing reduced guideline payment during the academic year but required the respondent to pay the full guideline amount during summer months and two additional months while the child returned home.

The request to increase the respondent’s proportionate share of section 7 expenses from 60% to 70% was denied due to insufficient evidence and the voluntary nature of the applicant’s proposed income reduction.

The court also established accounting principles for determining any spousal support arrears and ordered the respondent to maintain life insurance coverage to secure support obligations.