Suzanne M. Stevenson

The applicant sought interim child support of $50,000 per month, interim spousal support of $50,000 per month, and interim costs in litigation against a high‑income professional athlete earning approximately $12 million USD annually.

The court considered the Child Support Guidelines and jurisprudence on high‑income payors, including the presumption of table support and discretion under s. 4 where income exceeds $150,000.

The applicant’s proposed budget included a substantial monthly savings component intended to fund future housing and long‑term financial security for the child.

The court held that on an interim basis the respondent’s proposal of $28,000 per month adequately covered the child’s current expenses pending trial, while the issues of savings and discretionary spending should be fully examined at trial.

The court found the evidence regarding cohabitation and permanence of the relationship highly conflicting and declined to order interim spousal support, and also declined interim litigation funding due to insufficient evidence of current legal debt.

On competing family law motions following separation after an 18-year marriage, the court ordered bifurcation so that the validity of the parties’ marriage contract would be tried first.

Applying the bifurcation principles, the court held that the validity issue was discrete, could materially narrow the remaining trust, equalization, and support claims, and would likely reduce cost and delay.

The court also found a triable issue as to the enforceability of the marriage contract’s spousal support waiver, including concerns about timing, disclosure, duress, and unconscionability, and granted interim spousal support of $5,655 per month.

Further disclosure was restricted to what was necessary to determine the validity of the marriage contract, with broader valuation and income-analysis disclosure deferred.

Following the breakdown of a marriage involving two children with significant developmental needs, the applicant sought sole custody, retroactive child support, spousal support, equalization of net family property, and related relief.

The respondent sought sole or joint custody, claimed arrears of child support, and disputed income and property issues.

The court applied the best‑interests analysis under the Divorce Act and ordered joint custody with substantial parenting time to each parent.

Income was imputed to the respondent at $60,000 due to unreliable financial disclosure and unreasonable business deductions, resulting in ongoing child support and spousal support obligations.

The court also determined the parties’ net family property and ordered an equalization payment after finding that transfers to the respondent’s mother were not legitimate loans but attempts to defeat equalization.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent brought a motion under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules seeking summary judgment to enforce an alleged oral settlement reached during a settlement meeting.

The applicant argued that no binding settlement had been reached because essential terms remained unresolved and the parties intended any agreement to be finalized only through a comprehensive written separation agreement.

The court reviewed the governing principles for determining whether a binding settlement exists, including the requirement of consensus on all essential terms and objective evidence of a meeting of the minds.

Examining the parties’ post‑meeting correspondence and the proposed terms, the court found ongoing negotiations, material variations between proposals, and clear indications that a final written separation agreement was required.

As a result, the court concluded that no enforceable settlement had been reached.

The applicant mother sought final custody of the child and orders permitting her to obtain a passport and travel internationally with the child without the respondent father’s consent.

The respondent’s Answer had been struck after he failed to post court‑ordered security for costs and he did not attend trial.

Applying the best interests test under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court found the child was thriving in the mother’s care in Canada and had a stable home environment.

Evidence of past misconduct and concerns regarding flight risk supported continuation of supervised access for the father when he visits Canada.

The court granted the mother sole custody and authority to obtain or renew the child’s passport without the father’s consent and awarded costs to the mother.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant moved to strike the respondent’s pleadings due to repeated breaches of court orders, including failures to comply with financial disclosure obligations and past non-payment of support and costs.

In the alternative, the applicant sought security for costs and security for ongoing child and spousal support from proceeds of the respondent’s property held in trust.

The court held that striking pleadings is an exceptional remedy, particularly where custody and access issues involving a child remain unresolved, and declined to strike the respondent’s pleadings at this stage.

Security for costs was also denied because the court could not conclude the respondent’s claims were a waste of time or nuisance under Rule 24(13) of the Family Law Rules.

However, the court ordered continued retention of the sale proceeds in trust, directed that $25,000 be held as security for support, and granted the respondent 45 days to comply with outstanding disclosure obligations.

Following a family law trial addressing child support and section 7 expenses, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

Each party sought costs and relied on their respective success at trial and alleged unreasonableness by the other.

The court considered the presumption of costs to the successful party under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the divided success achieved on the issues, the parties’ settlement offers under Rule 18, and the parties’ conduct during litigation.

The court found that both parties had achieved some success and had also behaved unreasonably throughout the proceeding.

In light of divided success and mutual unreasonable conduct, the court ordered that neither party pay costs.

Following a 15‑year marriage, the applicant sought equalization of net family property, post‑separation adjustments, occupation rent, and other relief.

The court determined each party’s net family property and found the respondent owed an equalization payment to the applicant.

The court also ordered post‑separation reimbursements to the applicant for carrying costs of the matrimonial home, payment of a Legal Aid lien, prior costs, and funds improperly withdrawn from a joint line of credit.

The request for occupation rent was denied due to insufficient evidentiary foundation and equitable considerations.

Spousal support was continued at an agreed amount for a limited period, with income imputed to the respondent based on minimum wage due to intentional unemployment.

After a family law trial in which the respondent’s motion to change parenting arrangements was dismissed, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The successful party sought full recovery costs of over $84,000 based on Rule 18 offers to settle under the Family Law Rules.

The court held that the applicant’s final offer satisfied the requirements of Rule 18(14), entitling her to costs to the date of the offer and full recovery thereafter unless the court ordered otherwise.

Considering the factors under Rule 24(11), including success, reasonableness of behaviour, offers to settle, and proportionality of time spent, the court reduced the amount sought as excessive.

The court fixed fair and reasonable costs at $58,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following a brief marriage and the birth of a child, the applicant sought custody, child support, section 7 expenses, retroactive and ongoing support, and limited access arrangements for the respondent father residing in the United States.

The court found the father intentionally under‑employed and imputed income of $150,000 for child support purposes under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

Evidence from supervised access providers demonstrated the father’s interactions with the child were appropriate, while the applicant had interfered with access.

The court ordered a structured regime beginning with supervised access followed by unsupervised access in Ontario, declining immediate international access visits.

Retroactive child support and limited retroactive spousal support during the maternity leave period were granted, and proportionate contributions were ordered for childcare expenses.

In a family law motion to change child support and determine section 7 expenses following a consent order, the court addressed disputes regarding the children’s primary residence, retroactive table support, and responsibility for extraordinary expenses.

The evidence established that one child primarily resided with the applicant for several months, another alternated between residences and other locations before ultimately residing with the respondent, and the youngest child remained with the respondent.

The court adjusted historical and ongoing child support obligations accordingly, including partial support for a child attending university and a formula for post-secondary expenses requiring each parent and the child to contribute one-third after deducting scholarships or grants.

Claims for private school tuition were rejected as neither necessary nor reasonable in light of the parties’ means, though limited childcare and extracurricular contributions were ordered.

Arrears and future obligations were set out and enforced through the Family Responsibility Office.

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the applicant’s family law application challenging a mediation/arbitration award concerning termination and repayment of spousal support.

The applicant attempted to set aside the arbitration award under the Arbitration Act, 1991 and the Family Law Act, alleging jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice, evidentiary issues, and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court held that the issues had already been determined in prior proceedings, including a denied motion for leave to appeal and an enforcement order of the arbitration award, and were therefore barred by res judicata and issue estoppel.

The court further found the application was out of time under statutory limitation provisions and disclosed no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Summary judgment was granted and the application dismissed as an abuse of process.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for leave to appeal an arbitration award, the respondent sought costs on a full recovery or substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant argued for a reduced quantum due to his success on the issue of the appropriate test for leave to appeal.

The court found that while the respondent was the successful party, the applicant's partial success warranted a reduction.

After considering the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, including duplication of counsel time, the court fixed costs payable to the respondent at $9,000.

The applicant mother and respondent father shared custody of their twin children.

The father sought retroactive child support and a proportionate sharing of daycare expenses, as well as the imputation of income to the mother who had left a high-paying job.

The court declined to impute income, finding the mother's intentional unemployment was required by the needs of the children and her health.

Applying the Contino framework and considering the father's lack of financial contribution prior to separation, the court denied retroactive support for 2011 and 2012, but ordered set-off child support payable by the mother for 2013.

The applicant sought temporary child and spousal support, while the respondent cross-moved to impute income to the applicant and to calculate his income excluding certain non-cash and bonus components.

The parties shared parenting time equally.

The court declined to impute income to the applicant, finding she was not intentionally under-employed given her ongoing efforts to find work and her historical role as primary caregiver.

The court used the respondent's line 150 income of $217,007 to calculate temporary support, ordering him to pay $2,776 monthly in child support and $3,916 monthly in spousal support pending trial.

Both parties brought cross-motions for contempt alleging breaches of a 2008 divorce order.

The respondent alleged the applicant failed to provide income disclosure, post-dated cheques, life insurance proof, and endorse reimbursement cheques for their child's health expenses.

The applicant alleged the respondent breached the parenting plan and failed to provide income disclosure.

The court found the applicant in contempt for failing to provide financial statements for his business and failing to endorse reimbursement cheques.

The applicant's motion for contempt against the respondent was dismissed as no breaches were established.

The applicant was given 30 days to purge his contempt.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interim arbitration award in a family law dispute concerning valuation of corporate and trust interests for equalization purposes.

The arbitrator had dismissed the applicant’s request that the respondent obtain an independent business valuation report, finding a calculation valuation report prepared by the respondent’s expert sufficient.

The court held that the proper test for leave to appeal an interim arbitration award is that in s. 45(1) of the Arbitration Act rather than rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the importance of the matters at stake justified an appeal or that determination of the legal questions would significantly affect the parties’ rights.

The applicant remained free to challenge the valuation evidence or obtain his own report at trial.

Following the dismissal of a summary judgment motion brought by the defendants, the successful party sought substantial indemnity costs of $23,365.28.

The unsuccessful parties argued that costs should be assessed on a partial indemnity basis and limited to $4,500, asserting the claimed time and staffing were excessive.

The court applied the principles governing costs awards and considered the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including duplication of effort and prior costs already determined for earlier related motions.

While recognizing the successful party’s entitlement to costs and the importance of the summary judgment motion, the court found the claimed amount excessive and reduced it.

The court fixed fair and reasonable costs at $9,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following a motion concerning the sale of the matrimonial home and exclusive possession, the court addressed costs under the Family Law Rules.

The respondent had been entirely successful on the motion, obtaining exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and defeating the applicant’s request for immediate sale.

The court considered the presumption of costs under Rule 24(1), the effect of offers to settle under Rule 18(14), and the factors in Rule 24(11).

Although the respondent sought substantial costs, the court reduced the claimed amounts due to excessive time spent by counsel and uncertainty regarding disbursements.

The applicant was ordered to pay reduced costs to the respondent.

Following competing family law motions regarding custody and access, the court determined the issue of costs.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the respondent was substantially successful in obtaining expanded parenting time including overnight access, telephone access, and shared holidays.

Although both parties made offers to settle, neither met the strict requirements for enhanced cost consequences under Rule 18(14), though they remained relevant to the court’s discretion.

The court considered proportionality, the importance of the parenting issues, the reasonableness of counsel’s rates, and concerns about excessive time spent by the respondent’s legal team.

Costs were awarded to the respondent but significantly reduced from the amount sought.