Susan Nicole Berry

The applicant and respondent separated after a 10-year relationship.

The applicant sought an interest in the respondent's home, claiming unjust enrichment and a joint family venture.

The court found a joint family venture existed and awarded the applicant half the net value of the home.

The court also addressed parenting time for their special needs child, ordering unsupervised access conditional on the respondent providing clean drug tests due to a history of opioid addiction.

Furthermore, the court found both parties had misappropriated settlement funds belonging to the child and ordered the respondent to repay the funds into court.

The applicant mother brought an uncontested motion to change a final order that had provided for shared decision-making, week-about parenting, and no child support.

Following an incident where the respondent father locked the children out of his home, the children resided exclusively with the applicant.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding both parenting and child support.

After conducting a judicial interview with the two older children, the court awarded the applicant sole decision-making and primary residence, with no contact for the respondent.

The court also imputed an income of $50,000 to the respondent and ordered him to pay Guideline child support and his proportionate share of section 7 expenses.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family properties following a 16-year marriage.

The respondent husband claimed he was disabled, unemployed, and had no assets, asserting that properties and funds were owned by his parents.

The court found the husband and his parents lacked credibility and had failed to provide adequate financial disclosure.

The court imputed an income of $70,000 to the husband based on his intentional under-employment and hidden wealth.

Applying the presumption of resulting trust, the court found the husband held beneficial interests in several commercial properties registered in his mother's name.

The court ordered the husband to pay lump sum child and spousal support due to his history of non-payment and hidden assets, and ordered an equalization payment of $286,884.54 to the applicant.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' 10-year-old child and permission to relocate with the child to Slovakia.

The respondent father opposed the move and sought equal parenting time.

The court found that the child had a strained relationship with the father, who remained fixated on a past domestic incident, while the mother had been the primary caregiver and presented a detailed plan for the relocation.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court granted the mother sole custody and permitted the move to Slovakia.

The court also ordered the father to pay lump sum spousal and child support based on an imputed income of $75,000.

Following the death of the mother of his children, the applicant father sought custody and primary residence of his children who had been residing with their maternal grandparents for approximately ten years.

The father brought an emergency motion for custody prior to a case conference.

The maternal grandparents defended and cross-claimed for joint custody with the maternal aunt and uncle.

The maternal aunt and uncle were added as parties.

The father was unsuccessful in securing any substantive relief.

The matter proceeded to summary judgment, which the respondents won substantially.

This decision addresses the costs award arising from the motions and summary judgment proceedings.

A motion for summary judgment regarding custody and access of two children whose mother died.

The maternal grandparents and maternal uncle and aunt sought joint custody with limited access for the biological father.

The father opposed the motion and sought sole custody with the children relocating to Ottawa.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the respondents, finding that the unchallenged evidence established no genuine issue requiring trial.

The children had resided with the maternal grandparents for ten years in a stable environment.

The father had minimal involvement post-separation, failed to pay child support, and presented an unstructured care plan.

The children's preferences were to remain in Oakville with their maternal family.

Joint custody was awarded to the grandparents and uncle/aunt with limited monthly access for the father.

A costs decision following urgent motions regarding custody and access to a 12-year-old child.

The mother sought an order for the child's immediate return to her care after the father unilaterally withheld the child during summer vacation.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking custody and primary residence.

The court granted the mother's motion, ordering the child's return to her care and awarding her sole custody with restricted access to the father.

The costs decision addresses whether the mother should recover her legal costs or whether the father's conduct warrants a costs award in his favour.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order regarding spousal and child support, and sought various adjustments to his accumulated support arrears with the Family Responsibility Office (FRO).

He also sought a declaration that a mortgage he granted to his parents was valid and took priority over the FRO's lien.

The court terminated spousal support and adjusted child support on consent due to the applicant mother's remarriage.

However, the court dismissed the respondent's requests to reduce his support arrears, finding he could not benefit from his deliberate failure to pay support.

The court also found the mortgage granted to the respondent's parents was a fraudulent conveyance designed to avoid his court-ordered obligations, and ordered the proceeds of the sale of his condominium to be paid to the applicant.

The applicant sought costs of a motion on a substantial indemnity or full recovery basis in the amount of $15,642.36.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful on the motion for unsupervised access but was not entitled to full recovery of costs due to the failure to serve an offer to settle.

The court awarded costs in the reduced amount of $7,500.00, inclusive of taxes and disbursements, payable within 90 days, finding that the respondent's position on the motion was unreasonable and that some costs were incurred due to unnecessary litigation tactics.

The father brought a motion for unsupervised access to his eight-year-old daughter, who had been in the de facto custody of the mother since the parties' separation over one year prior.

The mother opposed the motion, alleging a history of violence and substance abuse by the father.

The court found insufficient evidence of a pattern of domestic violence or substance abuse, noting that the only incident post-separation was an isolated occurrence more than one year prior.

The supervised access reports demonstrated a warm, loving relationship between father and child with no observed anxiety.

The court granted the motion and ordered unsupervised access to continue on the existing schedule with conditions regarding alcohol consumption and physical discipline.

The applicant mother brought a motion for sole custody and primary residence of the parties' two young children, along with full table child support.

The respondent father sought sole custody and a variable parenting schedule based on his work as a pilot, with set-off child support.

The court found that both parents were capable and loving but exhibited high conflict and poor communication.

The court ordered shared (parallel) custody, dividing decision-making responsibilities between the parents, and established a fixed, predictable parenting schedule to provide stability for the children.

The father was ordered to pay full table child support and his proportionate share of section 7 daycare expenses.

The applicant brought a motion to vary a prior consent order seeking permission to relocate the children’s primary residence to the United Kingdom and to impute higher income to the respondent for child and spousal support.

The respondent opposed relocation and sought a variation providing that the children reside primarily with him if the applicant moved, while also requesting support be calculated based on his current income.

Applying the best interests test and the framework from Gordon v. Gertz, the court found the applicant’s reasons for relocation compelling, including immigration limitations preventing employment in Canada, lack of family support in Ontario, and available family and medical support in the United Kingdom.

The court accepted the respondent’s evidence that his current income was $135,000 and declined to impute income at the higher historical level.

The applicant was permitted to relocate with the children, subject to liberal and generous access arrangements for the respondent.

A costs decision following settlement of a family law dispute concerning child support, spousal support, and parenting arrangements.

The applicant sought costs of $5,000.00, arguing that the respondent's unreasonable conduct, including refusal to provide financial disclosure and rejection of mediation proposals, forced her to commence litigation.

The respondent argued both parties should bear their own costs as he was substantially successful.

The court found the applicant was the successful party and awarded costs based on her reasonable pre-litigation settlement offers and the respondent's unreasonable conduct in refusing financial disclosure and rejecting alternative dispute resolution.