Tracy Engelking

The applicant sought a divorce, sole decision-making responsibility, child support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The respondent sought joint decision-making, parenting time, spousal support, equalization, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court granted the divorce and ordered joint decision-making responsibility with final authority to the applicant.

A progressive parenting time schedule was ordered for the respondent, contingent on sobriety testing.

The court ordered the applicant to pay mid-range spousal support for an indefinite duration and the respondent to pay child support based on her actual and imputed income.

The applicant was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $46,000, and the matrimonial home was ordered to be sold.

Family law trial following a 21-year marriage in which the applicant sought divorce, sole decision-making responsibility in consultation with the respondent, a shared parenting schedule, imputed income for the respondent, equalization, and post-separation adjustments.

The respondent, who was self-represented, sought primary residence of the children, table child support, spousal support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court ordered joint decision-making responsibility, an equal alternating-week parenting schedule, retroactive child and spousal support based on imputed incomes for both parties, an equalization payment owed by the respondent to the applicant including a negative inference for undisclosed jewellery, and post-separation adjustments for carrying costs on jointly owned properties.

This is a comprehensive family law trial decision addressing corollary relief issues in a 19-year marriage between a self-represented applicant and a respondent.

The court determined the parties' incomes for support purposes, imputing $40,000 to the applicant and $262,000 (2020-2022) and $247,716.19 (2023) to the respondent.

The decision addresses complex issues including the respondent's income from an Egyptian business venture, the applicant's earning capacity, child and spousal support obligations, equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, and the disposition of the matrimonial home.

The court found the respondent owned an Egyptian villa at separation and rejected claims regarding undisclosed business profits.

Spousal support was ordered on an indefinite basis under the Rule of 65, with set-off child support for two children and proportional section 7 expense contributions.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a trial on parenting issues between Maryana Chyher and Amar Al Jaboury.

The court reviews the parties’ submissions, the relevant Family Law Rules, and the conduct of the parties throughout the litigation.

The court finds that the respondent, Mr. Al Jaboury, acted unreasonably and awards the applicant, Ms. Chyher, $60,000 in costs for the trial, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a 7-year-old Indigenous child.

The child had been removed to a place of safety due to concerns regarding the mother's home environment, exposure to conflict and drug use, and significant educational neglect.

The court held that the federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families takes paramountcy over the provincial CYFSA, and applied the best interests test under section 10 of the federal Act.

Despite the presumption of placement with a parent, the court found that returning the child to the mother's care was not in the child's best interests due to the ongoing risk of harm.

The child was placed in the temporary care and custody of the Society with generous access ordered for the mother and sibling.

The court considered an application by the father for shared decision-making and parenting time, and a response by the mother for primary residence, final decision-making, child and spousal support, and related relief.

After reviewing the parties’ history, the children’s needs, and the evidence of family violence and parental conduct, the court ordered primary residence and final decision-making with the mother, a specified parenting schedule for the father, child and spousal support, and prejudgment interest.

The court found the mother’s evidence more credible, noted the father’s undermining behaviour, and emphasized the best interests of the children, particularly in light of the son’s high needs and the impact of family violence.

The applicant mother sought a final order permitting her to permanently relocate with the parties' three young children from Renfrew to Powassan, Ontario.

The respondent father opposed the relocation, arguing that the children should remain in Renfrew where they could continue a shared parenting arrangement.

The court analyzed the best interests of the children under the Divorce Act, emphasizing the mother's need for emotional and financial support from her family in Powassan.

Ultimately, the court granted the relocation, finding it to be in the children's best interests, while establishing a parenting schedule that preserves the father's meaningful relationship with the children.

This decision concerns a high-conflict family law matter involving allegations of domestic violence, parental alienation, and the best interests of two children, A.G. and S.G., following the separation of Maryana Chyher and Amar Al Jaboury.

The court reviews extensive evidence, including expert parenting assessments, police and child protection reports, and the children's own views and preferences.

The court finds that Mr. Al Jaboury engaged in coercive and controlling behaviour and alienated the children from their mother.

Ultimately, the court orders a shared parenting regime to commence March 1, 2025, with Ms. Chyher having sole decision-making authority (except for religion in each parent's home), and sets out detailed provisions for parenting time, communication, travel, and costs.

The applicant father sought shared decision-making, a shared parenting schedule, child support, spousal support, and an equalization payment, challenging the validity of the parties' prenuptial agreement.

The respondent mother sought sole decision-making, primary residence, child support based on imputed income, and validation of the prenuptial agreement.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making due to findings of family violence and maintained her primary residence of the child.

The court imputed an income of $50,000 to the father due to intentional underemployment, ordered retroactive and ongoing child support, dismissed his spousal support claim, and upheld the prenuptial agreement.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a summary judgment motion seeking custody of three children with their paternal grandmother due to the mother's untreated substance addiction, mental health issues, and chaotic lifestyle.

The father and paternal grandmother supported the Society's motion.

The mother opposed, seeking shared decision-making and parenting time.

The paternal grandmother also brought a cross-motion for a change of the youngest child's surname.

The court granted the Society's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, and placed the children in the paternal grandmother's custody with specific supervised access for the mother.

The paternal grandmother's cross-motion for a name change was dismissed as moot.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking the return of the parties’ child to Renfrew County, Ontario, or, alternatively, transfer of the child to her care in Virginia.

The child had been unilaterally relocated by the applicant father to New Brunswick to live with the paternal grandparents, in breach of a prior US court order and the Divorce Act's relocation provisions.

The court found the father and grandparents failed to comply with legal requirements and that it was in the child's best interests to be placed in the primary care of the mother in Virginia, despite the grandparents' arguments regarding stability and the child's purported preferences.

The respondent brought a motion for security for costs and other relief, which the applicant sought to dismiss.

The court reviewed the factors under Family Law Rule 24(13), noting the applicant resides outside Ontario.

However, the court found no clear evidence that the applicant's underlying application was a nuisance or that the applicant lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs, especially given consistent enforcement of existing orders by the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) and Nova Scotia Maintenance Enforcement Program (MEP).

The motion for security for costs was dismissed, and the applicant was awarded costs of the motion.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a prior motion where the Applicant was successful.

The Applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis from the date of her offer to settle, totaling $18,558.40.

The Respondent conceded costs but argued the quantum was excessive and that the Applicant's offer, which included a non-severable clause for a disputed loan repayment, was less favorable than the motion's outcome, thus precluding full recovery costs.

The court agreed with the Respondent, finding the offer less favorable due to the disputed loan.

The court also deemed the hours billed excessive for the issues.

Consequently, the Respondent was ordered to pay the Applicant $9,600, representing partial indemnity costs on a reduced quantum of hours.

This endorsement addresses the quantum of costs following a successful motion for disclosure.

The Applicant sought substantial costs, arguing the Respondent's conduct was unreasonable and citing an unaccepted offer to settle.

The Respondent contended the requested amount was excessive and that prior costs issues had been resolved.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court considered the principles of indemnification, settlement encouragement, and discouraging inappropriate behaviour.

The court found the Respondent's counsel's conduct particularly egregious regarding communication and awarded the Applicant $8,000 in costs.

The applicant brought two motions: one to strike the respondent's pleadings regarding non-parenting claims and for other relief, and another for a finding of contempt due to the respondent's failure to comply with disclosure orders.

The respondent did not file a response but appeared in court.

The court declined to make a contempt finding, noting the applicant did not make submissions on the test for contempt.

Instead, the court issued a further disclosure order with strict timelines for financial documents, warning that failure to comply could result in striking the respondent's pleadings on financial issues.

The court also declined further orders on parenting issues and awarded costs to the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion for an order regarding the sale of the parties' matrimonial home.

The respondent agreed to the sale but disputed the choice of real estate agent and the request for proceeds to be held in trust.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home with the applicant's preferred real estate agent, Carol Traversy, citing her neutrality and the prior process for selecting agents for other properties.

The court also ordered that the net proceeds of the sale be held in trust pending a final order or agreement, due to the complex financial affairs of the parties and the respondent's lack of timely corporate financial disclosure, which raised concerns about potential equalization payments and child support arrears.

This is a child protection summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa seeking a finding that three children (S.L., J.L., N.C.) are in need of protection and an order for extended society care.

The parents contested the grounds for protection and the disposition.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the children being in need of protection under multiple subsections of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, and ordered extended society care.

However, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the parents' access to the children.

The Applicant, Melissa Saunders, brought a motion seeking disclosure from the Respondent, Anthony Mineault, regarding the valuation of his interest in his law firm, QTMG LLP, and his income for spousal support purposes.

This motion followed a previous order where the Respondent was directed to provide a business valuation report.

The Respondent argued he lacked control over the firm's documents, relying on a corporate law precedent (Himel v. Greenberg) concerning a director's access to corporate information.

The court distinguished Himel, noting that the Respondent, as an equal partner in a limited liability partnership without a partnership agreement, had statutory access to the firm's books under the Partnership Act.

The court found the Respondent had not fulfilled his disclosure obligations and ordered him to provide the requested information and pay the cost of the Applicant's expert's production letter.

The issue of the full cost of the valuation report was reserved.

This family law trial concerned a motion to change a prior custody order, with both parents seeking sole decision-making authority and primary residence of their two children.

The court found the respondent father incapable of meeting the children's educational, medical, and psychological needs, supporting their relationship with the mother, or communicating and cooperating on matters affecting them.

The father was found to have fostered a strong, unsubstantiated fear of the mother in the children.

In contrast, the applicant mother demonstrated a commitment to addressing her own mental health and tirelessly advocating for the children's well-being and access to services.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making authority and primary residence, with the father's parenting time suspended and to continue as supervised, pending a further hearing to determine final parenting time.

The moving party previously brought a motion to change child support, which resulted in an order varying his child support obligations.

The court subsequently noted an error in the reasons for decision regarding the commencement date of the varied support.

The court issued amended reasons to correct the commencement date from June 1, 2011, to May 1, 2021, which affected the calculation of arrears.

The parties were permitted to submit new costs submissions based on the corrected outcome.