Tania Harper

On a family law motion to vary interim spousal support, the moving party sought a mid-range SSAG amount while the responding party sought the high-range amount.

The court held that interim quantum is generally determined using an income-levelling approach under the SSAG rather than a detailed budgetary-levelling approach, subject to case-specific exceptions.

Although the court acknowledged that budgetary analysis may be useful in some interim contexts, it declined to apply that approach on the facts, including incomplete evidence regarding household cohabitation economics and comparative post-separation savings trends.

The court ordered spousal support at the high SSAG amount of $921 monthly commencing July 1, 2025.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

This 10-day trial addressed complex family law issues between unmarried parents, including decision-making authority, child relocation, and financial matters.

The court found the father not credible and noted a pattern of family violence.

The mother was granted sole decision-making authority and permission to relocate with the child to British Columbia, as it was deemed in the child's best interests due to the mother's stronger support network and the father's unsupportive and abusive conduct.

The father was ordered to pay child support arrears and a higher proportion of travel costs, and the court declined to impute income to the mother.

The child's surname was changed to include both parents' names.

This is a costs endorsement following a five-day family law trial.

The Applicant Father sought various reliefs, including changes to parenting schedules and child counselling, most of which were either resolved by agreement or dismissed.

The Respondent Mother disputed the Father's claims and sought costs.

The court found the Mother substantially successful on parenting issues and more reasonable in her conduct, despite her failure to provide complete financial disclosure for child support calculations.

The Father's offers to settle were deemed unreasonable and non-severable, and some of his requested orders were outside the court's jurisdiction.

Considering the parties' conduct, offers to settle, and the Mother's success on key issues, the court awarded the Mother $30,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant father sought orders requiring the children to attend counselling, restricting travel discussions, and varying child support in a shared parenting arrangement.

The mother opposed the counselling and travel orders, and disputed the father's request to impute her income at $67,000 following a period of disability.

The court dismissed the father's requests for counselling and travel restrictions, finding the children were well-adjusted and the primary issue was high parental conflict.

The court imputed part-time and full-time minimum wage income to the mother for the periods she was not receiving disability benefits, and ordered child support to be calculated using the set-off approach under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The Superior Court of Justice issued a costs endorsement following a family law trial.

The respondent was deemed the more successful party, particularly due to her settlement-focused approach compared to the applicant's unreasonable settlement positions and discreditable conduct during the litigation.

The court fixed costs on a substantial indemnity scale for the respondent, deducting amounts for her own disclosure delays.

The final order required the applicant to pay a net amount to the respondent after offsetting the equalization payment.

The parties separated after a 16-year marriage, during which they relocated to the UAE for work.

The applicant returned to Canada with the children and remained unemployed for a period, while the respondent stayed in the UAE to pay off debts and continue teaching.

The court determined the equalization of net family property, including the valuation of the applicant's OMERS pension and a disputed loan from his parents, which was excluded due to the expiration of the limitation period.

The court declined to impute income to the applicant, found the adult daughter remained a child of the marriage during a mental health leave from university, and awarded the applicant non-compensatory spousal support for a four-year transition period.

After setting off the equalization payment against retroactive support arrears, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant a net sum of $34,996.84.

The applicant sought costs following a family law trial regarding the division of equity in the matrimonial home.

The court found the respondent's demand for immediate payment of his half-share unreasonable, as it would have forced the sale of the children's home.

Although the applicant did not serve an Offer to Settle and was legally aided, she was the substantially successful party.

The court awarded the applicant $22,500 in costs, to be set off against the respondent's share of the equity.

The respondent father sought costs after successfully moving to rescind an ex parte order and obtaining non-supervised access to the children.

The applicant mother had obtained the initial order based on an affidavit that contained non-disclosure and mis-disclosure, which she later admitted during questioning.

Despite these admissions, the mother maintained an intransigent position, forcing the father to incur significant legal fees.

The court found the mother's conduct unreasonable and ordered her to pay $20,000 in all-inclusive costs to the father.

The applicant mother initially obtained an ex parte order granting her sole custody, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and a restraining order against the respondent father.

The court vacated the ex parte order after finding the applicant failed to disclose material facts, including her own recent initiation of intimacy and her admission that she sought supervised access merely because the respondent changed his work schedule.

On the interim motion, the court denied the applicant's request for a restraining order and supervised access, finding the status quo was shared parenting.

The court ordered an alternating 2-2-3 residential schedule.

Following a trial regarding child support, the court considered written submissions on costs.

The applicant sought up to $58,050 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court noted that success was divided, both parties were responsible for an unacceptable 14-year delay, and the respondent failed to provide full financial disclosure.

Considering proportionality and the parties' unreasonable positions, the court awarded the applicant $12,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant mother sought retrospective and prospective child support and section 7 expenses from the respondent father.

The court imputed income to the father due to problematic rental business accounting and delayed application for disability benefits.

The court ordered prospective guideline child support, a percentage of future section 7 expenses, and a lump sum for retrospective support and expenses, while deferring the determination of post-secondary expenses as premature.

The moving party (respondent) sought summary judgment dismissing the responding party's (applicant's) family law claims for a declaration of a spousal relationship and constructive trust over a residential property.

The moving party had previously obtained an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, which found that the parties were in a landlord-tenant relationship, not a spousal one.

The responding party appealed the Board's decision to the Divisional Court but failed to perfect the appeal, resulting in its dismissal.

The Superior Court of Justice granted summary judgment, finding that the family law claims were barred by the doctrines of issue estoppel, collateral attack, and abuse of process, as the responding party was attempting to relitigate issues already decided by the Board.

The court determined costs following a temporary custody motion where the respondent father achieved substantial success by obtaining joint custody and increased parenting time, contrary to the applicant mother's request for sole custody.

Both parties made offers to settle, but neither achieved a result more favourable than their offer.

The court awarded the respondent father partial indemnity costs fixed at $5,000, payable from the equalization payment owing to the applicant mother.

Following an eleven‑day family trial concerning custody, access, mobility, and child support, the court addressed a dispute arising from the mother's relocation from Kitchener to Wasaga Beach with the parties’ child.

The father sought primary residence and termination of his support obligations, while the mother sought permission to relocate and retroactive child support.

Applying the best interests test from Gordon v. Goertz, the court held the relocation was permissible and that the mother would retain primary residence, with expanded access to the father.

The court also found the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to disclose income increases and ordered substantial retroactive child support.

Ongoing support was recalculated based on imputed income reflecting corporate dividends and income splitting.

Following a family law trial, the court determined costs where the applicant had been self-represented.

The applicant sought broader recovery, including reimbursement of legal fees previously paid to counsel and relief related to family debts discharged in the respondent’s bankruptcy.

The court held that costs cannot be used to indirectly redistribute property or circumvent the legal consequences of bankruptcy.

While the applicant achieved a better result than the respondent’s trial offer, recovery for a self‑represented litigant was limited to reasonable disbursements directly related to trial attendance.

The court awarded modest disbursements for purchases, parking, and mileage.

Following the breakdown of an 11‑year marriage without children, the applicant sought divorce and spousal support.

The respondent acknowledged an obligation to pay support but disputed the amount and duration.

The court applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and imputed income to the applicant based on her employment history and earning capacity.

Considering the income disparity and the applicant’s financial hardship following separation, the court ordered transitional lump‑sum payments followed by monthly support within the SSAG mid‑range for a fixed duration.

A life insurance policy was also ordered as security for support.

The complainant sought a peace bond against the respondents alleging threats and property damage.

The court found that while the respondents engaged in inconsiderate conduct, including bulldozing and spray painting the lawn of the matrimonial home, such actions did not constitute grounds for a peace bond.

The court determined that the complainant failed to establish reasonable grounds for fear of personal injury or property damage on the balance of probabilities.

The application was dismissed.