V. Jennifer Mackinnon

The moving party (respondent in the family application) sought to strike the application or suspend a temporary spousal support order due to the responding party's failure to comply with a disclosure order and delay the proceedings.

The responding party had failed to produce income information, medical records regarding a pain management clinic, and pharmacy records.

The court found the non-disclosure to be willful and significant to the moving party's defense against the spousal support claim.

The court declined to strike the application but imposed a strict timetable, stayed the temporary spousal support order until disclosure is complete, and ordered that support be reduced once reinstated.

The moving party, William Ndze Fuhgeh, sought a temporary order for unsupervised access to his two sons, Joshua (with Kimberly Stewart) and William (with Marie Marielle Edith Bernard), including specific exchange locations and video communication.

The court dismissed both motions.

For William, the motion was procedurally incorrect as it sought to change a final order without initiating a Motion to Change and failing to establish a material change in circumstances.

For both children, the court noted Mr. Fuhgeh's voluntary 19-month absence from their lives, his non-compliance with previous court orders regarding access and OCL involvement, and his prioritization of personal beliefs over court decisions and the children's best interests.

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to court orders in family law.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a relocation trial where the mother (respondent) was successful in obtaining an order to relocate the child to Australia for three years.

The mother sought full indemnity costs of $36,859.84, while the father (applicant) sought an order for each party to bear their own costs.

The court awarded the mother $12,500 in costs, net of a prior $1,000 order.

The decision considered the mother's partial success, her offers to settle (one of which was reasonable but made too late, another deviated significantly from her trial position), the father's unreasonable litigation conduct, the inherent difficulty in settling relocation cases, and the father's precarious financial circumstances.

Payment of costs was deferred until the final resolution of other outstanding issues and estate litigation.

The applicant sought costs for two motions: a recusal motion brought by the respondent and a motion to strike brought by the applicant.

The applicant was successful on both motions.

The court rejected the applicant's claim for full indemnity costs, noting that the Family Law Rules do not provide for a general approach of close to full recovery.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs, fixing the amount at $40,930.53 based on reasonableness and proportionality.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from motions brought by both the Applicant father and Respondent mother.

The father was awarded 70% of his costs, fixed at $8,690, primarily due to the mother's unsuccessful and ill-advised pursuit of retroactive child support by motion and her late consent to add the father's name to birth certificates.

The court found the father was the successful party on the undue hardship issue and declaration of parentage, while the mother succeeded on the name change issue.

Costs for a contested adjournment were declined for the father.

This endorsement addresses costs following a settled family law case.

The Applicant sought termination of child support and rescission of arrears, while the Respondent sought retroactive support.

Minutes of Settlement established the Applicant as the successful party, as his motion to change was granted and the Respondent's dismissed.

The court found the Respondent's claim of success to be without merit, noting her "complete capitulation." The Respondent's arguments regarding the Applicant's blameworthy conduct"bullying tactics" in an offer to settle, refusal to settle on a no-costs basis, and alleged failure of financial disclosure were rejected.

The court found the Applicant's disclosure extensive and persuasive.

Considering the factors under Family Law Rules r.24, including the Applicant's complete success after protracted litigation, the court awarded partial indemnity costs at 70% of the Applicant's claimed fees.

The Applicant's costs were fixed at $16,700, with repayment terms adjusted based on the Respondent's financial circumstances.

The Applicant's motion was heard on February 26, 2019, where he withdrew several claims including supervised access, sale of the matrimonial home, and spousal support.

The motion proceeded on three issues: an advance on an equalization payment, an amendment to a restraining order, and retrieval of personal belongings.

The Respondent was largely successful on the equalization payment, success was divided on the restraining order, and the Applicant was technically successful on retrieving belongings (though unopposed).

The court found the Respondent to be the more successful party on the motion and awarded costs of $17,500, inclusive of HST, to the Respondent.

This decision considered the Applicant's unreasonable litigation conduct, including late withdrawal of claims and obtaining a premature return date for the motion, which increased costs and delayed access to justice.

The Applicant father opposed the Respondent mother's request to relocate with their son, Ilya, to Australia for three years.

The mother, who was the sole custodial parent, sought permission for the move, citing her husband's employment contract and the family's financial and emotional well-being.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" test from *Gordon v. Goertz*, weighed the disruption to the child's relationship with the father against the benefits of remaining with the primary caregiver and her family unit, as well as the financial stability and reduced stress for the mother's husband.

The court also considered the father's conduct in lodging a false complaint against the mother's husband.

The court granted the mother permission to relocate with the child to Australia for three years, subject to specific access and communication terms, and a requirement for a mirroring order in Australia.

The applicant mother sought to strike the respondent father's pleadings in response to her motion to change access and to require leave for the father to bring further litigation, specifically a motion to change child support.

The court dismissed the motion to strike the father's pleadings regarding access, emphasizing the importance of a full evidentiary record in custody/access matters.

However, the court granted the request to require the father to obtain leave before pursuing any motion to change child support, citing his egregious history of non-compliance with financial disclosure orders and outstanding costs.

The applicant sought primary residence and shared decision-making with final authority, and child support.

The respondent sought shared decision-making, equal residential parenting time, and temporary spousal support.

The court granted the applicant primary residence and shared decision-making with final authority, citing the respondent's surveillance activities and threats as reasons for a serious lack of trust and finding his conduct not in the children's best interests.

The respondent's request for equal residential parenting and temporary spousal support was dismissed, with the court finding no serious triable issue to set aside the marriage contract's spousal support waiver under the Miglin test.

Interim child support was ordered, and the issue of section 7 expenses and final child support was deferred.

The applicant father sought child support below Guidelines due to undue hardship, access to information, a declaration of parentage, a name change for the children, and a restriction on the respondent mother relocating the children.

The respondent mother sought child support and retroactive child support.

The court granted the declaration of parentage and access to information.

It found the father met the undue hardship test due to unusually high access costs, reducing his child support obligation.

The request for a name change was deferred to trial due to premature relationship development and factual disputes.

The relocation restriction was addressed by undertakings from the mother to provide notice and consent to continued jurisdiction.

The issue of retroactive child support was also deferred to trial.

The applicant sought costs fixed at $4,500 for a motion heard on October 22, 2018, where the respondent was the moving party and was substantially unsuccessful.

The court found the applicant was the successful party on the underlying motion and was entitled to costs.

The respondent's arguments for deferring the costs decision, including an alleged apprehension of bias, the assignment of a case management judge, and an attempt to re-argue the motion, were rejected.

Applying the Family Law Rules and appellate guidance on proportionality and reasonableness, the court fixed the applicant's costs at $3,470, at the upper end of the partial recovery range, considering the respondent's errors in the underlying motion.

The applicant sought to change a final order regarding child and spousal support due to changes in children's residential arrangements.

The respondent denied one child was a child of the marriage and sought to increase spousal support.

The court found a material change in circumstances for child support, terminated the applicant's child support obligation, and ordered the respondent to pay child support for certain periods.

The court also ordered reimbursement of overpaid child support by the applicant.

The spousal support entitlement was found to be both needs-based and compensatory, with specific calculations deferred.

The respondent, David Blair Watts, brought a motion seeking extensive disclosure and procedural relief from the applicant, Karen Enid Elaine Martin, in a family law proceeding.

The motion primarily sought bank statements, credit card records, and proof of certain financial transactions, alleging a "money laundering scheme" and misrepresentation of matrimonial home value.

Watts also requested an order for interim disbursements.

The court largely dismissed Watts's motion, finding many disclosure requests unsubstantiated, factually misguided, or relating to records equally available to him.

The court ordered the applicant to produce specific proof for one sum and a cheque copy if not already provided.

The request for interim disbursements was denied due to Watts's financial capacity, prior unsuccessful motions, and the applicant's compliance with disclosure obligations.

Leave was granted for amended pleadings.

This endorsement addresses costs following a 35-day trial concerning parenting and financial issues.

The applicant sought substantial costs for a contempt motion and financial issues, while the respondent also claimed costs.

The court awarded the applicant $45,000 in full recovery costs for the contempt motion and $10,000 in partial recovery costs for financial issues, both payable by the respondent.

However, no costs were awarded to either party for the parenting issues due to both parties' limited success and unreasonable litigation conduct.

The court also ordered a reapportionment of supervised access fees, to be paid proportionately to income, finding both parents contributed to its necessity.

This case concerns a child protection matter focusing on access between a child, B., and her mother, S.D., following a summary judgment finding B. in need of protection and awarding joint custody to the father and maternal grandmother.

The trial addressed the extent and conditions of the mother's access, including supervision and location.

The court considered the mother's personality disorder, her inability to regulate emotions, and her "victim's stance" as well as her cannabis use and history of conflict.

The court ultimately increased the mother's access duration from the status quo but denied overnight visits and a rotating three-week schedule, allowing home visits only after CAS inspection.

The decision emphasized the child's best interests, the need to reduce conflict, and the mother's lack of insight into her issues.

The applicant mother sought a stay of interlocutory orders that found her in contempt for relocating the child's residence without notice and transferred interim sole custody and primary residence to the respondent father.

The court applied the modified RJR-Macdonald test for stays in child parenting cases, prioritizing the child's best interests.

While the applicant established a serious issue to be tried regarding procedural fairness, she failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, especially given the impending trial date.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and an order granting custody to the mother with supervised access for the father.

The father opposed the motion, arguing he should be allowed to defend a pending criminal trial first and that there were genuine issues of credibility requiring a trial.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the father failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the Society's case.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the children in need of protection due to exposure to parental conflict, and ordered custody to the mother with supervised access for the father.

The father brought a motion to change a final order regarding access, child support, and section 7 expenses following his move to Nova Scotia and release from the Canadian Forces.

The court varied the access schedule to provide for extended visits in Nova Scotia, with the child travelling as an unaccompanied minor.

However, the court dismissed the father's request to reduce child support, finding he failed to establish a medical inability to work and was voluntarily underemployed.

The court also reduced the mother's claim for section 7 expenses by amounts incurred without the father's consent.

In a child protection trial, the father served a summons to compel the 12-year-old child to testify.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer brought a motion to quash the summons, supported by the applicant society and the mother.

The court granted the motion to quash, finding that compelling the child to testify posed a significant risk of emotional harm and that the father's primary purpose was to impeach her credibility rather than prove material facts.

The court also ruled on the father's request to introduce the entirety of the child's police interview video, holding that only specific prior inconsistent statements relating to substantive issues, and not collateral facts, could be admitted.