Vanessa Amyot

The applicant mother sought temporary orders for sole decision-making authority for the child, and to dispense with the respondent father's consent for the child's passport renewal and international travel.

While the father consented to the passport and travel issues after the motion was served, the court proceeded to determine the interim decision-making issue.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making authority, finding that the father's abusive communication, non-compliance with previous orders, and general unwillingness to co-parent made joint decision-making impossible and contrary to the child's best interests.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The applicant sought partial summary judgment to dismiss the respondent's claim to set aside a cohabitation agreement.

The respondent argued the agreement should be set aside due to unconscionability, undue influence, duress, and inadequate financial disclosure, stemming from alleged coercive control during their 18-year common law relationship.

The court found that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial, particularly concerning the credibility of the parties and the nature of their relationship, which could not be resolved on a paper record.

The applicant's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

In a family law proceeding involving claims for child support and a constructive trust, both parties brought motions to compel answers to undertakings, under advisements, and refusals from their respective Questionings.

The court applied the principles of relevance and proportionality under the Family Law Rules to determine which questions must be answered.

The court ordered the applicant to provide various financial documents, including business ledgers subject to a non-disclosure agreement, and ordered the respondent to disclose legal and accounting fees, while dismissing requests for irrelevant banking and business interference information.

The applicant appealed two arbitration awards.

The court partially granted the appeal regarding a property expense accounting issue (declaring the award a nullity due to lack of written agreement for jurisdiction) and dismissed the appeal regarding children's expenses.

This endorsement addresses costs.

The court found divided success but noted the applicant's unreasonable conduct in challenging jurisdiction on appeal after previously agreeing to arbitration.

Despite partial success, the applicant was deprived of costs for the issue she won, and the respondent was awarded $10,000 in costs for the issue he won, reflecting the applicant's unreasonable conduct and the respondent's more reasonable settlement efforts.

The applicant appealed two arbitration awards concerning family law matters, challenging the arbitrator's originating jurisdiction and whether he exceeded his authority.

The court held that the arbitrator had originating jurisdiction based on the parties' separation agreement and minutes of settlement, despite the absence of a separate prescribed family arbitration agreement, but noted that such awards are not enforceable without regulatory compliance.

The appeal regarding children's expenses was dismissed, upholding the arbitrator's decision.

However, the appeal concerning the Forest Hill property expenses was allowed, as the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction on that issue because the agreement to arbitrate it was not in writing as required by the separation agreement.

The parties separated but continued to live in the matrimonial home with their 11-year-old child.

Due to escalating conflict, both parties brought motions seeking physical separation; the applicant mother sought exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, while the respondent father sought a temporary nesting order.

The court granted the mother exclusive possession, finding that a nesting order would perpetuate conflict and that the father had superior financial means to secure alternative accommodation.

The court also ordered a week-about shared parenting schedule, finding it in the child's best interests to maintain maximum contact with both capable parents.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision that granted partial summary judgment in favour of the respondent on the issue of non-disclosure of the appellant Neil's interest in a family trust established by his father Solomon.

The motion judge found that Neil had deliberately failed to disclose his interest in the trust to Randi when they entered into a separation agreement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, finding that the trust indenture had been disclosed to Randi's counsel and financial advisors, and that Randi was deemed to have knowledge of Neil's interest through her counsel.

The court held that Neil's omission from his financial statements could not transform actual disclosure into non-disclosure under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

The court also found that even if there had been non-disclosure, the asset was not significant as it constituted excluded property under the Family Law Act.

The claims for conspiracy to commit fraud, deceit, and punitive damages against Solomon were also dismissed as they could not be sustained on the evidence.

The respondents (former husband and his father) brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant's (former wife's) claim that a Separation Agreement should be set aside due to material misrepresentation and non-disclosure regarding the former husband's beneficial interest in a family trust.

The applicant opposed this motion and brought a cross-motion for a preservation order.

The court dismissed the respondents' motion for summary judgment, finding that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the materiality of the non-disclosure.

The court also granted partial summary judgment in favour of the applicant, finding that the former husband deliberately failed to disclose his interest in the trust and that the former wife did not have actual knowledge of this non-disclosure.

The cross-motion for a preservation order was dismissed.

The remaining issue for trial is the materiality of the non-disclosure and the appropriate remedy.

The parties made submissions regarding the costs of two prior motions dealing with parenting and child support.

The applicant sought costs on a full or partial recovery basis, while the respondent argued each party should bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found that success was divided on both motions and that the applicant's costs were disproportionate.

The court ordered that neither party shall pay or recover costs.

The applicant sought to vary a week‑on/week‑off parenting arrangement so that the child would primarily reside with her.

The dispute centred on allegations that the child was unhappy during time spent with the respondent and required emotional space to address her feelings.

The court considered the status quo principle but found special circumstances justified altering the existing arrangement.

Relying in part on evidence from the child’s counsellor and the child’s expressed wishes, the court ordered that the child reside with the applicant and spend time with the respondent in accordance with the child’s wishes.

A parenting assessment under s. 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act was also ordered.

On an interim family law motion, the applicant sought temporary spousal support, an order dispensing with the respondent’s consent to sell the matrimonial home, and payment of home maintenance expenses pending sale.

The court considered the parties’ financial circumstances under the Divorce Act and determined that interim support should be set using the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, imputing income to the respondent and none to the applicant.

The court also found the respondent had not established a reasonable need to delay sale of the matrimonial home and authorized its repair and listing for sale without the respondent’s consent if necessary.

Orders were made for interim spousal support, the repair and sale of the property, ongoing property expenses, and further financial disclosure.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

A 14-year-old applicant commenced an application for child support against her alleged biological father, seeking private school tuition.

The respondent relied on a 1999 agreement with the applicant's mother settling child support on a final basis.

The parties brought multiple interim motions.

The court ordered that the parties be referred to by initials to protect the respondent's children, required the applicant to appoint a litigation guardian, and ordered the applicant and her mother to attend for questioning.

The court dismissed the applicant's motions for interim disbursements, temporary child support, and summary judgment, finding no immediate need for support and that the enforceability of the 1999 agreement was a genuine issue for trial.

This is a costs decision arising from a temporary motion by the mother to relocate her child from Ontario to Nova Scotia.

The mother was successful in obtaining permission to relocate.

The court awarded costs to the successful mother, considering factors under the Family Law Rules including the importance of the issues, the reasonableness of each party's behavior, the lawyer's rates, time spent, expenses, and other relevant matters.

The father's failure to serve an offer to settle and his lack of full financial disclosure were significant factors in the costs award.

The applicant mother sought permission to relocate with the child to Nova Scotia prior to trial.

The respondent father opposed the relocation.

The court found that the mother had been the de facto custodial parent, that the child was thriving in her care, and that compelling financial circumstances existed justifying the move.

The court granted temporary custody to the mother and permitted the relocation to Nova Scotia, while retaining jurisdiction over all custody, access, and support issues.

The court found that the mother would inevitably prevail at trial and that the only remaining triable issue was the nature and extent of the father's access.

The applicant sought costs following a contested family law motion, requesting full recovery costs of $33,539 or alternatively partial recovery costs of $22,136.

The respondent argued that a clause in a Partial Interim Separation Agreement barred any costs award or, alternatively, that costs should be limited to a substantially lower amount.

The court held that the contractual clause requiring each party to pay their own legal and professional fees did not waive the applicant’s right to seek a judicial award of costs.

Finding the applicant to be the successful party and noting that an offer to settle engaged full recovery entitlement for part of the proceeding, the court reduced the claimed amounts due to excessive hourly rates, duplication of work, and unnecessary attendance by multiple counsel.

Costs were fixed on an all‑inclusive basis.

The respondent moved to bifurcate a family law trial to determine custody, support, and the validity of a marriage contract before addressing equalization of net family property.

The applicant opposed and sought extensive financial disclosure, arguing the issues of property division and spousal support were interrelated.

The court held that the validity of the marriage contract and spousal support analysis under Miglin require knowledge of the parties’ financial positions at separation.

Because property equalization must precede spousal support and the issues were intertwined, bifurcation would risk prejudice and inefficiency.

The motion for bifurcation was dismissed and the respondent was ordered to provide full financial disclosure regarding assets and liabilities at separation.