Tracy Engelking

The parties were married under Sharia Law in 2007 but never registered the marriage in Ontario.

After separation, the applicant sought a declaration of a valid marriage, equalization, or alternatively, damages for unjust enrichment, as well as child and spousal support.

The court found the marriage invalid under Ontario law because the parties did not intend to comply with the Marriage Act.

However, the court found the respondent was unjustly enriched by the applicant's assumption of domestic and childcare duties, awarding her a monetary remedy of $26,785.

The court also imputed income to the respondent for travel benefits received and ordered him to pay retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated after a short relationship with two children.

The father sought joint custody, equal parenting time, and rescission of child support arrears.

The mother sought sole custody, child support, spousal support, and a police enforcement clause due to the father's history of overholding the children.

The court ordered joint custody but granted the mother final decision-making authority and primary residence, with the father having parenting time three weekends per month.

The court ordered child support based on the father's imputed and actual income, rescinded arrears only for a brief reconciliation period, found the mother entitled to spousal support at a quantum of zero, and granted the police enforcement clause.

The moving party father brought a motion to change a 2008 separation agreement, seeking to terminate child support for three adult children, terminate spousal support, and rescind arrears.

The responding party mother cross-moved for retroactive adjustments based on imputed income.

The court terminated child support for the two oldest children as of their 23rd birthdays, as agreed in the separation agreement, and ordered table support for the youngest child until her 23rd birthday.

The court declined to terminate spousal support immediately, ordering it to continue until 13 years from the date of the agreement.

The court declined to impute income to the father and refused to rescind his arrears, finding he had no reasonable excuse for unilaterally reducing support payments without formal variation.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2013 final order to reduce her child support obligations effective January 1, 2016, due to a significant reduction in her income caused by mental health challenges and the sale of two of her dental practices.

The respondent father sought retroactive child support adjustments for 2013, 2014, and 2015, arguing the mother's income was higher than previously disclosed.

The court dismissed the father's claim for retroactive support, finding no material change in circumstances prior to 2016 and no blameworthy conduct by the mother.

The court determined the mother's income for support purposes from 2016 onwards by excluding non-recurring capital gains from the sale of her practices and applying a working capital analysis to her corporate income, resulting in a reduction of her ongoing child support obligations.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and permission to relocate with the parties' young child to Arnprior.

The respondent father sought joint custody, increased parenting time, and relief from child support arrears due to his return to school.

The court ordered joint custody, finding the mother had unreasonably restricted the father's access.

The father was granted increased parenting time.

The court imputed income to the father for a period of voluntary unemployment but suspended ongoing child support and section 7 expenses while he remained a full-time student.

The mother's request to relocate with the child was denied as it would disrupt the child's relationship with the father.

Following a family law trial regarding the equalization of net family properties, the applicant sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The respondent argued the costs sought were excessive and that certain pre-trial steps should not be included.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle and found the applicant beat her November 2018 offer.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs for the period prior to the offer and full indemnity costs thereafter, fixing the total costs award at $32,732.72.

The court determined the costs of an appeal regarding a motion to change custody and access.

The applicant/respondent on appeal sought costs on a full indemnity basis, relying on a written offer to settle.

The respondent/appellant argued against costs, citing delay and partial success.

The court found the applicant was substantially successful but noted the respondent achieved partial success.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $1,280.00.

The applicant sought to vary a final order regarding spousal support and set aside a waiver of pension entitlement.

In the context of this motion to change, the respondent brought a motion for disclosure of the applicant's former counsel's file, and the applicant brought a cross-motion for temporary spousal support.

The court ordered the production of the file, finding an implied waiver of solicitor-client privilege due to the applicant putting her state of mind and knowledge regarding the original settlement at issue.

The court dismissed the cross-motion for temporary spousal support, emphasizing the high test for interim variation of a final order, which requires exceptional circumstances not demonstrated by the applicant.

The appellant, M.D., appealed an order from the Ontario Court of Justice that struck his Response to Motion to Change and directed an uncontested trial.

The original order was made due to M.D.'s repeated non-compliance with court orders, including non-payment of costs and failure to provide documents.

The Superior Court of Justice, on appeal, applied a three-pronged test for striking pleadings, finding that a triggering event occurred and striking the pleadings was appropriate given the history of non-participation.

However, the motion judge erred by not considering other remedies, particularly in a case involving the best interests of a child.

The appeal was allowed in part, reinstating the matter for trial but with M.D.'s pleadings remaining struck.

M.D.'s participation was limited to cross-examination of the respondent's witnesses and final submissions, and he was prohibited from bringing pre-trial motions without leave.

The parties resolved all issues except the equalization of their net family properties, specifically the valuation of their respective federal public service pensions.

The court determined that the applicant's pension value must include all pensionable service for which she elected to repay contributions for leaves without pay.

The court also found that the applicant's survivor benefit should not be included in her net family property as it would be lost upon divorce.

For the respondent's pension, the court used age 60 as the reasonable retirement age based on his pre-separation intentions and declined to deduct a contingent survivor benefit.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $563,560.23 with pre-judgment interest.

This is a costs decision following a procedural motion, a motion to change, and a trial of an issue in a family law matter.

The respondent, Mr. Eaton, was largely successful in all three underlying hearings and had made several offers to settle.

The applicant, Ms. Boily, was ordered to pay costs to the respondent in the total sum of $14,500.81, inclusive of HST and disbursements, for the three matters.

The court considered the parties' conduct, offers to settle, and the outcomes relative to those offers, finding Mr. Eaton entitled to full recovery of costs for the procedural motion and the trial of an issue due to Ms. Boily's failure to accept more favourable offers, but only partial recovery for the motion to change due to Mr. Eaton's prior non-compliance with disclosure orders.

Following a family law trial with divided success, both parties sought costs.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $52,218.97, while the respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $11,111.11.

Both parties alleged bad faith against the other.

The court reviewed the offers to settle and the behaviour of the parties, noting that the applicant had unilaterally removed the child and the respondent had sold the matrimonial home without consent.

Given the divided success and the poor behaviour of both parties, the court made no order as to costs.

The applicant brought a summary judgment motion for equalization of net family property and sought an unequal division under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act, citing the respondent's post-separation depletion of his pension and accumulation of joint debt.

The court found that an equal division was not unconscionable, as the respondent had already been ordered to indemnify the applicant for the post-separation debts.

The court ordered an equalization payment of $40,815.51 to the applicant, to be satisfied by the entirety of a pending Law Society Compensation Fund payout for stolen house proceeds, with the remainder rolled over from the respondent's WSIB Loss of Retirement Income Benefit.

Following a successful motion for disclosure brought by the respondent, both parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought $5,900 on a partial indemnity basis, while the applicant sought $12,704.45, claiming divided success.

The court found the respondent was substantially successful on the motion and awarded her costs of $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis, noting the applicant's counsel's time spent was excessive.

Following a motion for interim financial relief, the applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis, relying on an offer to settle that was less favourable to the respondent than the final order.

The respondent argued the requested amount was excessive.

The court found the applicant was presumptively entitled to full recovery costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

After a minor reduction in the applicant's counsel's billed hours for reasonableness, the court awarded the applicant costs of $8,654.15.

The Applicant sought custody, access, spousal and child support, equalization of net family property, and permission to travel internationally with the child without the Respondent's consent.

The Respondent sought custody, no equalization, and restrictions on the child's travel documents.

The court granted joint custody with the Applicant having primary residence and final decision-making authority in case of disagreement.

Unilateral international travel for either parent was denied due to Iraq not being a Hague Convention signatory.

The court ordered child and spousal support, and an equalization payment to the Applicant, including a deferred maher payment, but applied an unequal division of net family property due to the short cohabitation period.

The applicant brought a motion to change parenting time, which resulted in the children residing primarily with him.

In these supplementary reasons, the court determined whether the respondent's parenting time met the 40% threshold under section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines to justify a set-off of child support.

The court applied an hourly calculation and found the respondent's time fell short of the required 3,504 hours per year.

Consequently, the respondent was ordered to pay full table child support.

The applicant mother was entirely successful on her motion to change the children's primary residence, establish parenting time, and obtain child support.

She sought costs for the motion.

The court found that the applicant's offer to settle was more favourable to the respondent than the final order, entitling her to full recovery costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

After reducing some hours that pertained to the overall application rather than the motion, the court awarded the applicant costs of $11,492.38.

The respondent brought a motion to change child support and arrears.

The applicant was the successful party on the motion, as the court fixed arrears at $25,082, which was closer to her position than the respondent's.

The applicant sought costs of $11,098.02 based on her counsel's usual rate, but the court limited recovery to the actual rate charged.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $3,815.35, noting the respondent's failure to make an offer to settle.

The Applicant sought divorce, custody, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The Respondent, who was self-represented, faced significant credibility issues regarding his income and financial disclosure.

The court determined the date of separation, imputed income to the Respondent for child support purposes due to intentional underemployment, and ordered retroactive and ongoing child support.

The court also ordered an equalization payment and payment for a post-separation debt incurred by the Respondent on the Applicant's credit card.

Daycare expenses were denied due to a lack of credible evidence from the Applicant.