Tracy Engelking

The applicant brought a motion to change a 2005 child support order, seeking retroactive and ongoing child support and section 7 expenses for two children.

The respondent had failed to disclose significant income increases over several years.

The court applied the D.B.S. factors and ordered retroactive support from 2009 to 2016, finding the applicant had a reasonable excuse for delay and the respondent engaged in blameworthy conduct by hiding his income.

The court also imputed income to the respondent for 2016, finding he was intentionally underemployed after being terminated for cause due to unauthorized vacation.

The father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' three-year-old son to the United Kingdom.

The mother admitted to wrongfully removing the child to Canada but opposed his return, arguing that returning him would expose him to a grave risk of harm due to the father's alleged domestic violence, pursuant to Article 13(b).

The court reviewed the evidence of past violence and involvement of child protection authorities in the UK, concluding that the mother failed to establish that the alleged violence was severe, likely to recur, or life-threatening.

The court ordered the child's return to the UK.

The applicant brought a motion to change a previous support order, arguing a material change in circumstances due to a change in employment and reduction in income.

The respondent opposed, seeking to impute income to the applicant, retroactive section 7 expenses, and a finding of contempt regarding the division of household contents.

The court found a material change in circumstances and adjusted child and spousal support for 2016, 2017, and ongoing from 2018 based on the applicant's actual and projected incomes.

The court declined to impute income, finding the applicant was not intentionally underemployed.

The court also dispensed with the respondent's consent to list a jointly owned cottage for sale, dismissed the contempt motion, and declined to order security for support.

The applicant husband sought to set aside a 2005 marriage contract under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act, alleging inadequate financial disclosure, lack of understanding, inadequate legal advice, duress, and unconscionability.

The court found that the respondent wife did not fail to disclose her interest in a family trust because neither party knew of its existence at the time.

The court also found that the applicant received adequate independent legal advice, understood the contract, and was not subjected to duress or undue influence.

The application to set aside the marriage contract was dismissed.

The applicant sought spousal support and a monetary remedy of $59,400 for unjust enrichment following the breakdown of a seven-year common law relationship.

Both parties were initially in the military, but the applicant voluntarily left and subsequently struggled to maintain full-time employment.

The court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding the respondent did not receive a tangible benefit from the applicant's career decisions.

However, the court found the applicant entitled to needs-based spousal support.

Finding the applicant intentionally under-employed, the court imputed income to her and awarded a lump sum spousal support payment of $16,276 for a four-year period.

The respondent father brought a motion for increased and overnight access to the parties' two young children.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion for temporary child support, spousal support, and an interim disbursement to hire an income expert.

The court granted the father's request for a graduated schedule of overnight access.

The court ordered the father to pay temporary child support of $2,108 per month and temporary spousal support of $770 per month, after imputing an income of $70,000 to the mother due to intentional underemployment.

The mother's request for a $20,000 interim disbursement was dismissed as she had access to joint funds.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, interim disbursements for expert fees, and financial disclosure.

The parties were married for 40 years but maintained separate finances, with the respondent acquiring significant wealth through inheritance late in the marriage.

The court dismissed the claims for interim spousal support, finding no prima facie case for entitlement given the lack of financial dependency.

The court also dismissed the request for the immediate sale of the home and interim disbursements, but granted a limited order for financial disclosure.

The applicant mother sought costs on a full indemnity basis following her successful opposition to the respondent father's motion to relocate the children to Switzerland.

She argued the respondent acted unreasonably and in bad faith.

The court found that neither party acted unreasonably or in bad faith in the conduct of the litigation.

The court awarded costs to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, fixing the amount at $5,100 after reducing the time claimed by her counsel for being excessive.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking temporary sole custody of the parties' child and a finding that Ontario has jurisdiction over custody and access.

The child had relocated from Florida to Ontario to live with the father.

The Florida court had recently ordered the child returned for a custody hearing.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice declined to make an ex parte order on jurisdiction or custody, finding that the respondent mother had not been properly served.

The court scheduled a motion on the jurisdiction issue and requested the Florida court adjourn its hearing in the interim.

The court issued an addendum to a previous costs endorsement to correct an error regarding the scale of costs.

The original endorsement mistakenly stated that the respondent's costs were to be paid at a substantial indemnity rate.

The addendum corrected this to state that the costs are to be paid at a full indemnity rate.

The moving party sought costs of $17,500 following a motion where he unsuccessfully sought sole custody but successfully obtained an order for access to his children.

The responding party opposed the costs, arguing success was divided and her behaviour was reasonable.

The court found that the matter was factually complex and neither party behaved unreasonably.

Noting that success was divided, the court ordered the responding party to pay $3,000 in costs to the moving party.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the Applicant's motion to restrain the Respondent from depleting assets.

The Respondent, as the successful party, sought costs.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the Respondent, finding that the Respondent's offer to settle met the criteria for full recovery under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court also considered the Applicant's unreasonable behaviour in filing voluminous and largely irrelevant materials, which necessitated the Respondent's response.

The applicant sought an order for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home due to financial inability to maintain it and accumulated debt.

The respondent opposed the sale and brought a cross-motion for an order requiring the applicant to pay for an expert report to assess his pre-marriage assets.

The court granted the order for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, finding that the respondent's claim for exclusive possession did not raise a triable issue and that the sale was in the interest of both parties to satisfy debts and preserve equity.

The respondent's motion for interim disbursements for an expert report was dismissed, as the court was not convinced of a prima facie case of sufficient merit or necessity, especially since the applicant had already provided an expert report.

Michael Bielser, the father, brought a motion seeking to enforce a previous consent order (Justice Roger, March 9, 2017, paragraph 7) for the children to return to Switzerland to reside in his primary care.

The mother, Mirjam Bielser, opposed the transfer and sought an order for temporary custody and primary residence of the children in Canada.

The court found that the children's expressed views and preferences regarding their residence were not unequivocal, consistent, or independent, and noted concerns about potential parental lobbying.

The court declined to enforce the order on an interim basis, stating that the complex issues of custody and the children's country of residence should be determined at trial with a full record.

The primary residence of the children was ordered to remain with the mother in Canada pending further agreement or court order.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary previous orders, seeking temporary sole custody of the children and no access for the applicant mother, following the dropping of criminal charges against him and new charges laid against the mother.

The applicant mother opposed this and requested a s. 30 assessment.

The court dismissed the father's request for sole custody and no access for the mother, but granted him temporary supervised access with the paternal grandmother.

The mother's request for a s. 30 assessment was also declined at this stage.

This trial addressed outstanding family law issues including retroactive and ongoing child support, section 7 expenses, and nominal spousal support.

Previous orders had resolved custody, access, and equalization.

The applicant sought significant retroactive support and imputation of income to the respondent.

The court found the respondent owed substantial retroactive child support and section 7 expenses for prior years, but declined to impute income, accepting his efforts to find new employment after involuntary layoffs.

The court also limited section 7 expenses by excluding gymnastics costs post-2015 due to the parties' changed financial means.

The respondent's claim of undue hardship was rejected due to insufficient evidence and poor financial disclosure.

The applicant was awarded costs.

The respondent brought a motion to change a previous spousal support order, seeking increased retroactive and ongoing support due to the applicant's undisclosed severance payment and post-retirement employment income, alleging a material change in circumstances.

The applicant counterclaimed for a reduction in support, citing the respondent's remarriage.

The court found the applicant's failure to disclose severance payments and post-retirement income constituted a material change, and that severance pay was income for support purposes despite a property release clause in the separation agreement.

The respondent's remarriage was not deemed a material change.

The court ordered increased retroactive and ongoing spousal support for the respondent and dismissed the applicant's counterclaim.

This endorsement addresses costs following a trial in a family law matter.

The Applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis from the date of his offer to settle and partial indemnity prior, totaling $30,046.00.

The Respondent requested a deduction for retroactive child support and section 7 expenses ($7,424.27) and claimed financial hardship.

The court found the Applicant substantially successful and that the trial outcome was as favorable as or more favorable than his offer to settle.

The court fixed costs payable by the Respondent to the Applicant at $20,000.00, from which the $7,424.27 owed to the Respondent was deducted, resulting in a net payment of $12,575.73 to the Applicant.

The applicant, Mr. Rancourt, sought judicial review to set aside an arbitration award concerning child support, arguing he was denied procedural fairness and the opportunity to present his case due to the arbitrator's refusal to grant an adjournment.

Mr. Rancourt had dismissed his counsel eight days before the hearing and requested an adjournment to retain new counsel.

The court found the arbitrator failed to judicially exercise discretion by not considering all relevant factors for an adjournment, particularly Mr. Rancourt's right to counsel and the prejudice he suffered.

The court granted the application, set aside the arbitration award and costs award, and removed the arbitrator, remitting the dispute to a new arbitrator.

The applicant sought exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and temporary spousal support.

The respondent challenged the court's jurisdiction and sought to stay the proceedings pending a divorce/annulment application in Lebanon.

The court found that Ontario was the last common habitual residence, establishing jurisdiction, and declined to stay the proceedings on *forum non conveniens* grounds.

However, the applicant's motion for exclusive possession was dismissed as the property was not deemed a matrimonial home, and her motion for temporary spousal support was dismissed due to her capacity for self-sufficiency and the short duration of the marriage.

The applicant was permitted to proceed with her underlying application claims.