Susan Harris

This high-conflict family law motion concerned the respondent mother's request to travel to Pakistan with the parties' seven-year-old son without the applicant father's consent, and to compel the father to consent to the child's passport renewal.

The applicant opposed, alleging abduction risk and citing safety concerns from Canadian travel advisories.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding the risks to the child's safety and security, coupled with the difficulty of return from a non-Hague Convention signatory country, outweighed the travel's benefits.

The applicant's cross-motion for Office of the Children's Lawyer involvement was deemed premature.

The applicant brought a motion seeking extensive financial disclosure from the respondent after he failed to pay child and spousal support for several months.

The respondent argued he was unable to pay due to a blackout period restricting the sale of his vested Restricted Stock Units, and that he cured the arrears once the blackout ended.

The court found that while the respondent had a history of non-compliance, much of the requested disclosure was irrelevant to the outstanding issues of support and property division.

The court ordered the respondent to produce only the documents relevant to determining his income for support purposes and awarded costs to the applicant.

The appellant sought to set aside a peremptory consent order and obtain a further extension of time to perfect his appeal, having failed to meet a previous deadline.

The court found no error in the consent order and no adequate explanation for the appellant's delay or non-compliance.

Emphasizing the prejudice to the respondent and the children, particularly the need for finality in family proceedings, the court dismissed the motion and awarded full indemnity costs to the respondent.

Following a five-day family trial between former common law spouses, the court determined parenting, property, child support, and spousal support issues.

Applying the best interests framework under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court awarded the applicant sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the children, finding high conflict, family violence, poor communication, and a history of the respondent involving the children in parental conflict.

On the property issues, the court found that although the respondent initially retained a one-half beneficial interest in the applicant-titled condominium by resulting trust, the parties had engaged in a joint family venture and the respondent had been unjustly enriched by the applicant’s direct and indirect contributions, warranting a constructive trust remedy granting the applicant full ownership of that unit while the respondent retained his separate unit.

The court also imputed annual income of $72,000 to the respondent for child support purposes, ordered table child support, and awarded time-limited compensatory spousal support with a review-like reduction mechanism.

The respondent mother sought a costs award of $18,788.88 following settlement of a family law application.

The applicant father had commenced proceedings seeking to change the parenting plan from the existing arrangement (approximately 39% of the time with the children) to a 50-50 "week about" schedule, and to reduce child support accordingly.

The mother opposed the application and sought sole custody.

The parties settled on January 19, 2017, with the mother obtaining sole custody and the father's parenting time being reduced to every other weekend and one Wednesday evening per week.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $6,000.00, finding that while the mother was entirely successful, the father had acted reasonably in accepting the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendations and settling the matter relatively quickly thereafter.

The applicant mother sought temporary child support and spousal support for the parties' young child retroactive to May 2014.

The respondent father initially disputed spousal support entitlement but conceded it at the hearing, with the dispute narrowing to quantum.

The parties reached agreement on child support amounts based on the father's prior year income.

The court found the mother entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and needs bases, applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court ordered child support of $804 per month from March 2014 to February 2015 based on 2013 income, and $1,186 per month from March 2015 based on 2014 income.

For spousal support, the court ordered $1,705 per month from August to December 2014 and $3,571 per month from January 2015 onward.

The court declined to award retroactive spousal support prior to August 2014, finding insufficient immediate need and concerns about the father's ability to pay without undue hardship.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of post-divorce enforcement and contempt motions concerning unpaid s. 7 child-related expenses and a life insurance obligation intended to secure support.

The Court of Appeal held it was open to the motion judge to conclude that the respondent had reasonably complied with the s. 7 expense provisions and that substantial indemnity costs were not mandated despite wording in the divorce order, because costs remained discretionary.

The court also upheld the dismissal of the contempt motion, applying the civil contempt test and finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's acceptance of evidence that the respondent's medical condition prevented him from obtaining traditional life insurance.

Although the court stated that the motion judge erred in saying there was no legal basis for a dependent to insure the payor's life under the Insurance Act, the appellant's proposed alternate insurance remedy required a change order and the fresh evidence tendered on appeal was inadmissible.