Tracy Engelking

The applicant, Ms. Boily, brought a motion to change a divorce order, seeking retroactive and ongoing spousal support and child support adjustments.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the respondent's significantly higher income in 2012 compared to the initial order.

The court imputed income to the applicant for support purposes due to unexplained business expenses and her failure to pursue a higher-earning profession for which she was trained.

Retroactive spousal support was awarded for 2012 and 2013, but none for subsequent years or on an ongoing basis.

Child support was adjusted for 2015 and set for 2018.

The court emphasized the need for litigation to cease.

This judgment addresses a discrete trial of an issue concerning retroactive child and spousal support payable by the respondent from September 24, 2009, to December 31, 2011.

The court determined that no support was payable for the last quarter of 2009.

For 2010, child support was set at $1268 per month based on an annual income of $65,000, with no spousal support.

For 2011, child support was set at $624 per month based on an annual income of $31,708, with no spousal support.

The court emphasized the reliance on CRA Notices of Assessment for income determination, dismissing the applicant's speculative claims of higher income.

This final order replaced previous temporary orders, and the Family Responsibility Office was directed to adjust arrears accordingly.

The applicant sought costs following a trial regarding parenting time.

At the start of the trial, the respondent brought a summary judgment motion which the applicant successfully opposed, though the court found his communication regarding settlement was unreasonable and denied him costs for the motion.

The trial proceeded on parenting time, and the applicant achieved a better result than the respondent's offers to settle.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $9,119.27.

The applicant father sought sole custody and primary residence of his two children, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent mother also sought sole custody and primary residence, and the sale of the home.

The court found the mother to be the primary caregiver pre-separation and post-separation, despite significant conflict and intrusive monitoring by the father and his parents.

The court granted the mother sole custody and primary residence during the school year, with shared summers and holidays.

The matrimonial home was ordered to be sold, with proceeds divided after accounting for child support arrears and Canada Child Tax Benefit credits.

The applicant and respondent brought motions concerning various family law issues following their separation.

Key issues included the status of the matrimonial home, ownership of a dog, temporary spousal support, repayment of alleged loans, and the return of jewellery.

The court declined to make a final declaration on the matrimonial home and loans, leaving these for trial, but granted the applicant ownership of the dog and ordered the respondent to return the rings.

The respondent was granted temporary spousal support and continued health benefits.

The applicant father brought a motion to change the nesting arrangement for the parties' two children, seeking primary residence with him.

The respondent mother sought primary residence with her.

The court determined that a material change of circumstances had occurred, necessitating a fresh inquiry into the children's best interests under the framework of *Gordon v. Goertz*.

The court considered the children's views, as reported by the Office of the Children's Lawyer, but found them to be ambivalent and not well-informed, thus placing little weight on them.

Emphasizing the importance of stability and minimizing disruption, the court found it was in the children's best interests to remain living with their father in Ottawa, as they had always done.

The previous Divorce Order was varied to reflect the father as having primary residence, with the mother having parenting time three weekends out of four during the school year and shared holidays.

Child support and costs were reserved for further submissions.

This endorsement addresses costs following a summary judgment motion where the respondent was largely successful in having the applicant's application dismissed and securing child support.

The court considered the parties' conduct, the applicant's unreasonable position, his failure to provide disclosure, and an informal offer to settle that was less favourable than the outcome.

While the applicant's conduct was not deemed bad faith, it was found unreasonable.

The respondent's costs were reduced due to an adjournment necessitated by her failure to provide income proof.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

This endorsement addresses costs following a motion to change child support arrears, where the court previously found the applicant owed $29,148.43.

The respondent sought costs on a full indemnity basis, citing two offers to settle that were more favourable to the applicant than the final outcome.

The applicant, who was self-represented and disorganized, did not accept these offers.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and entitled to costs, particularly under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules due to her unaccepted, more favourable offer.

The court awarded the respondent $20,946.46 in costs, payable from sale proceeds and enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

This was an uncontested trial where the Applicant sought equalization of Net Family Property (NFP), an unequal division of NFP, child support, spousal support, and a property transfer.

The Respondent was noted in default.

The court declined to make an equalization payment due to insufficient information but ordered an unequal division of NFP, finding the Respondent had recklessly depleted family assets.

Lump sum child and spousal support were awarded, secured by the transfer of the Respondent's interest in the matrimonial home and a rental property to the Applicant.

Divorce was granted.

The applicants, paternal grandparents, brought a motion for disclosure of a suicide note written by their deceased son (the children's father) to the respondent mother.

They argued the note might reveal dynamics between the parents or the mother's state of mind, which they believed was relevant to their application for grandparent access.

The court reviewed the letter in camera and determined it was not relevant to the central issue of whether grandparent access was in the best interests of the children.

The motion for disclosure was dismissed.

In a family law trial concerning custody and mobility, the applicant sought custody and permission to relocate to England with the parties’ two children, while the respondent sought shared custody with equal parenting time.

The court applied the best-interests analysis under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, s. 16 of the Divorce Act, and the mobility framework from Gordon v. Goertz.

It found that both parents should have joint custody, but that final decision-making authority should rest with the applicant because she had been the more active parent in attending to the children’s medical and emotional needs.

The court further held that relocation to England was in the children’s best interests given the applicant’s stable household, stronger financial prospects, and substantial family support in the United Kingdom, while preserving significant parenting time for the respondent.

Child support was ordered at a reduced amount to account for the respondent’s travel-related parenting expenses.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking a temporary order to relocate the primary residence of the parties' two children from Ottawa to Brockville, Ontario, and for child support.

The respondent father opposed the motion.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on a clause in the separation agreement requiring consent or a court order for relocation.

Applying the best interests of the child test from Gordon v. Goertz and interim mobility factors from Plumley v. Plumley, the court granted the temporary order permitting the move, citing the mother's new full-time employment, the strong family support network in Brockville, and the children's strong preference to relocate.

The father's parenting time was adjusted, and child support was ordered effective August 1, 2018.

A request for child counselling was declined on a temporary basis due to a lack of clear necessity and the joint decision-making authority of the parents.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a family law trial.

The applicant, Ms. A.-Z., sought full recovery of her costs, arguing complete success at trial, that the outcome was less favourable to the respondent, Mr. H., than her settlement offers, and that Mr. H.'s behavior was unreasonable throughout the proceedings.

Mr. H. failed to provide costs submissions despite an extension.

The court found Ms. A.-Z. was entitled to full recovery costs from January 1, 2017, due to Mr. H.'s unreasonable conduct, lack of credibility, failure to provide disclosure, and non-compliance with court orders.

The court adjusted counsel rates and excessive time spent on costs submissions.

Ultimately, Mr. H. was ordered to pay Ms. A.-Z. $262,768.68 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

On a motion to vary an interim child support order, the moving party sought retroactive reduction of support to nil following job loss, unemployment, incarceration, and the later creation of a self-employment business.

The court held that a material change in circumstances justified reducing support to nil only for the period from November 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017.

After release from incarceration, the moving party provided no meaningful evidence of job-search efforts or business income disclosure, and the court applied the intentional underemployment principles to impute income at the level used in the original interim order.

The motion was therefore granted only in part.

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to correct a mistake in a previous order fixing child support arrears.

The court had previously interpreted a Family Responsibility Office statement as indicating a zero balance, but new evidence clarified that the entry was an adjustment for a notice of withdrawal, not a payment.

The court corrected the mistake and varied the order to fix the arrears at $29,148.43.

Following a successful motion to change regarding retroactive child support, the applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis from the date of her offer to settle.

The respondent argued for a reduction based on partial success on a cross-motion, unnecessary costs, and his financial circumstances.

The court found the applicant's offers to settle were reasonable and the respondent's focus on the cross-motion was unreasonable.

The court awarded the applicant $15,000 in costs, noting that limited financial means cannot be used as a shield against costs orders.

Following a motion to change regarding child and spousal support, the applicant sought costs of $65,000 based on an offer to settle.

The respondent argued the applicant's counsel's hourly rate of $475 was excessive and should be capped at $350.

The court found the higher rate was justified due to counsel's special expertise as a certified specialist in family law.

However, considering the applicant's mixed success on some issues and redundant preparation time, the court fixed costs at $50,000 payable by the respondent.

The payor father brought a motion to change seeking to terminate child support for two adult children as of their 18th birthdays.

The recipient mother responded by seeking retroactive increases in child support back to 2006 based on the father's undisclosed income increases, as well as section 7 expenses.

The court terminated support for the adult children as of the dates they withdrew from high school, rather than their 18th birthdays.

Applying the D.B.S. framework, the court ordered retroactive child support back to 2013, finding the father's failure to disclose significant income increases constituted blameworthy conduct, and fixed arrears at $25,082.

Following a trial where the respondent successfully defended the validity of the parties' marriage contract, the respondent sought costs of $55,371.53 on a full recovery basis due to an unaccepted offer to settle.

The applicant argued financial hardship.

The court found the respondent was entitled to full recovery costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules but exercised its discretion to fix costs at a fair and reasonable amount of $40,000, payable from the applicant's share of joint property proceeds.

The applicant brought a motion seeking occupation rent, property appraisals, and financial disclosure from the respondent.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking security for costs and disclosure of the applicant's medical records.

The court dismissed the claim for occupation rent as premature, ordered the respondent to provide a realtor's opinion and car dealer estimate instead of formal appraisals, and ordered full disclosure of the respondent's bank records.

The court dismissed the respondent's request for security for costs to preserve access to justice, but ordered the applicant to produce medical records to substantiate her claim that she cannot work.