Tisha Hasan

In a family law matter arising from the breakdown of a relationship, the respondent sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $28,800.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant submitted that each party should bear their own costs, or alternatively, that the respondent should pay costs to the applicant in the amount of $11,603.97 relating solely to the Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution process.

The court found that most outstanding issues were resolved through Minutes of Settlement with divided success between the parties.

The court declined to award costs, finding that it was unable to determine that one party was clearly successful or that one party clearly capitulated to the opposing party's position.

This endorsement resolves outstanding property issues between Katherine Britton and Nicholas Leigh following their separation.

The court determined entitlement to various personal property items, generally awarding items to the party with a receipt or clear evidence of ownership.

Items without clear ownership were placed in a "Coin Toss Pile" to be distributed by alternating selection after a coin toss.

The decision also addresses procedures for lost, destroyed, or loaned items and outlines compensation if a party can prove intentional loss or destruction by the other party.

This endorsement addresses the process for resolving outstanding property issues between the parties following a Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) hearing.

The court sets out a step-by-step procedure for the parties to complete a chart detailing disputed assets, their value, and supporting evidence, with the aim of facilitating a final decision on division of property.

The approach emphasizes clarity, fairness, and finality, including a coin toss mechanism for assets that cannot be attributed to either party.

This endorsement addresses outstanding issues between Katherine Britton and Nicholas Leigh following the breakdown of their relationship, including parenting matters for their child, Eleanor, and division of property.

The parties participated in a Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) hearing, resolved several issues, and set out procedures for travel, childcare, and communication.

Remaining property issues are to be discussed at a continuation of the JDR.

This motion concerned the temporary care and custody of an Indigenous child, J.M. Tikinagan Child and Family Services (TCFS) sought to place the child with J.L., with access to the mother, R.M. Former caregivers S.C. and J.V. brought a cross-motion for the child's placement with them.

The court applied the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA) and the An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis Children, Youth and Families (Federal Act), emphasizing the best interests of the child and the priority of placement for Indigenous children.

The court found TCFS discharged its onus, citing concerns about S.C. and J.V.'s care, their interference with access, and their lack of support for reunification and cultural continuity.

The court dismissed S.C. and J.V.'s motion and ordered the child's temporary care and custody with J.L., with supervised access to the mother, supporting reunification efforts.

The applicant sought retroactive child support for one child from February 2011 to June 2021.

The court found the respondent engaged in blameworthy conduct by not providing income disclosure and intimidating the applicant.

Despite some payments made by the respondent, the court determined that gifts and direct payments to the child did not satisfy the child support obligation.

Applying the principles from S. (D.B.) v. G. (S.R.), the court awarded retroactive child support from January 1, 2014, to June 30, 2021, in the amount of $63,804, payable at $1,000 per month.

The applicant was also awarded costs.