V. Jennifer Mackinnon

In a child protection application, the applicant sought to introduce out-of-court statements made by the child to child protection workers and a counsellor for the truth of their contents.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the threshold reliability of these hearsay statements.

Applying the principled exception to the hearsay rule, the court evaluated the circumstances under which the statements were made, including the child's spontaneity, the absence of leading questions, and the timing of the recordings.

The court found that the majority of the statements met the threshold reliability test and were admissible, with the exception of one response to a directive question.

In Part Two of a family law trial, the court determined the remaining property and support issues between the parties.

The court calculated the equalization of net family property, ordering the respondent to pay $54,023.39.

The court also addressed child support, ordering the respondent to pay $237 per month based on a hybrid shared parenting arrangement, and apportioned section 7 expenses.

The applicant was awarded a lump sum of $45,000 in spousal support based on non-compensatory entitlement due to the economic disadvantage arising from the marriage breakdown.

Finally, the court awarded the applicant $8,500 in occupation rent for the respondent's exclusive use of the mortgage-free matrimonial home.

In a high-conflict family law trial, the court addressed parenting issues, custody, access, and a motion for contempt.

The mother had repeatedly and unilaterally denied the father access to the children, citing concerns about his anger and past domestic violence.

The court found the mother in civil contempt for breaching access orders, noting she lacked an objectively reasonable basis to terminate access and failed to take reasonable steps to comply.

The court ordered her to pay a $15,000 penalty into the children's RESPs and provide make-up time.

Given the severe parental conflict and the deteriorating mental health of the eldest child, the court ordered a divided parallel parenting regime with limited joint decision-making, an alternating-week residential schedule for the daughter, and alternate weekends for the son, along with mandatory therapeutic interventions for both parents.

The Father brought a motion for unsupervised access to his two daughters, whose access had been supervised since June 2014.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) proposed a discretionary, staged progression, while the Father sought a more rapid, automatic transition to unsupervised visits.

The court noted the Father's recent move, the lack of oversight in his proposal, and past issues with negative communication about the Mother and uncooperative behaviour with CAS staff.

The court adopted a structured, 10-week access progression plan proposed by the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL), with specific conditions for missed visits and ongoing oversight.

The court also provided suggestions for subsequent access stages, contingent on CAS approval of the Father's new residence and cohabitant.

Following a family law trial involving parenting, property, spousal support, and child support, both parties sought costs.

The court found that neither party achieved success on the property issues and both made unreasonable settlement offers.

The court declined to award costs for parenting, property, or spousal support due to divided success and the parties' failure to act in the children's best interests.

However, the applicant was awarded $7,500 in partial recovery costs for the issue of child support, as the respondent's position on child support was unsuccessful and he preferred his own financial interests over his support obligations.

The applicant brought an originating application under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act seeking to impose a review order on the respondent's spousal support to monitor her efforts towards self-sufficiency.

The parties had a separation agreement requiring the respondent to make reasonable efforts to contribute to her own support.

The court found the respondent had made minimal efforts since separation.

Applying the principles from Leskun, the court held that a review order was appropriate given the respondent's non-compliance with the agreement.

The court ordered spousal support to continue at the current rate but imposed a review in five years, and fixed arrears owed to the respondent at $4,272.

Following a 10-day family law trial regarding child custody and access, both parties sought full recovery costs.

The respondent mother was the substantially successful party, having been awarded sole custody and primary residence, while the applicant father's claims were found to be untenable and pursued in bad faith.

The court applied the principles of bad faith under the Family Law Rules, noting the father's unreasonable litigation conduct and failure to prove serious allegations.

The court fixed the respondent's costs at $200,000 all-inclusive, deducting a prior $9,000 costs award owed to the applicant.

This endorsement addresses the costs for a motion to change, where the respondent, Donna Walts, was deemed the successful party.

The court found her offer to settle was substantially similar to the final court order.

While the applicant, Ronald Walts, was not found unreasonable in bringing the motion, the respondent was awarded partial recovery costs to the date of the order and full costs thereafter, fixed at $13,250.00, all inclusive.

A 4-year-old child, B., was apprehended and placed with her maternal grandmother under a temporary supervision order.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) initially sought a supervision order to the grandmother but later amended its application to seek a 6-month supervision order to the father.

The CAS and father then moved for a temporary placement with the father, while the mother sought placement with her.

The court dismissed the mother's request and, after reserving on the father's request, ordered that the child remain with the maternal grandmother under the temporary supervision order, pending final determination of the amended application.

The decision emphasized the importance of continuity of care and the high threshold ("require") for changing a child's placement before a final determination, and highlighted the need for adherence to statutory timelines in child protection cases.

The applicant brought a motion to strike evidence from the respondent's affidavit, alleging mediation/settlement privilege and non-compliance with the Family Law Rules.

The evidence related to an alleged separation agreement concerning spousal support waiver and share division.

The court ruled that the existence and enforceability of such an agreement are trial issues, not to be determined on interim motions for spousal support or disclosure.

The respondent was ordered to remove privileged and non-compliant materials and to confine his evidence for the substantive motions to whether the applicant has established a prima facie case that no enforceable agreement exists.

Following the dismissal of the father's Hague Convention application for the return of the children, the successful mother sought costs of $9,000.

The father opposed, arguing for no costs or $2,500, citing his own legal fees and a post-hearing settlement.

The court noted the mother's offer to settle was identical to the final order and the father provided no evidence of financial inability to pay.

The court awarded the mother costs fixed at $7,000.

The applicant, Mr. Walts, brought a motion to change spousal support, seeking a reduction in payments.

He argued that a material change in circumstances had occurred because the respondent, Ms. Walts, had reached age 55 and could now access her Locked-in Retirement Savings Plan (LRSP), and because his own income had decreased due to voluntary retirement and subsequent part-time employment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Mr. Walts had not established a material change in circumstances.

The court imputed his pre-retirement income and determined it was not objectively reasonable to require Ms. Walts to draw on her LRSP at that time, considering her disability, future needs, and market fluctuations affecting her retirement assets.

A review date for spousal support was set for when Mr. Walts reaches age 65.

The applicant father sought the return of the children to Seattle, Washington, under the Hague Convention, alleging wrongful removal or retention in Ottawa, Ontario, after he was denied entry to Canada due to a criminal record.

The respondent mother argued that the children's relocation to Ottawa was mutually agreed upon and their habitual residence had changed.

The court found that the parents had a joint settled intention to move the children to Ottawa, and the father's consent was not vitiated by deceit or misrepresentation.

The application for the return of the children was dismissed.

The applicant sought divorce, custody, child support, and an order for the respondent to sell jointly owned property in Quebec to satisfy child support arrears.

The court dismissed the divorce claim due to lack of jurisdiction, as neither spouse met the one-year residency requirement under the Divorce Act.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant and ordered the respondent to make a lump sum child support payment equal to the respondent's share of the equity in the Quebec property.

However, the court declined to make an in personam order compelling the respondent to sell the Quebec property, finding it could not supervise the execution of such an order in a foreign jurisdiction, despite having in personam jurisdiction over the respondent for child support.

Costs were awarded to the applicant, reflecting mixed success.

The Applicant sought $1,010 in costs as the successful party to a motion brought by the Respondent.

The Respondent argued against a costs order due to his inability to pay and the Applicant's representation by a staff lawyer at ILSO.

The court considered the Respondent's delay in complying with a previous order to collapse his RRSP and apply proceeds to an outstanding costs award.

Despite the Applicant's claim for costs based on counsel's time, the court awarded partial costs, fixing them at $600, to be added to existing outstanding costs.

The Respondent was also prohibited from bringing a motion to change until all costs are paid in full.

The applicant mother and respondent father both sought costs following a family law trial.

The mother sought $38,000 and the father sought $5,000.

The court found that success at trial was divided: the mother succeeded on sole custody, child support, and Section 7 expenses, while the father succeeded on property issues and spousal support.

Success on access was also divided.

Although the mother made offers to settle, they did not align with the trial outcome, and the father failed to make any offers.

Consequently, the court made no order as to costs, requiring each party to bear their own.

Following a decision on five motions where success was evenly divided, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The court reviewed the submissions and the settlement correspondence between counsel, which did not constitute formal Rule 49 offers.

Finding that success remained evenly divided and both parties made good faith attempts to resolve the issues, the court declined to award costs to either party.

Following a judicial review application where the court found a reasonable apprehension of bias by the Child and Family Services Review Board, the parties sought costs against the tribunal for both the tribunal hearing and the judicial review.

The Divisional Court held it lacked jurisdiction under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act to award costs for the proceeding before the administrative tribunal.

Furthermore, the court declined to award costs of the judicial review application against the tribunal, finding its participation was not adversarial and its conduct did not rise to the exceptional level required to justify such an award.

The self-represented parties' alternative claim for costs against the children's aid society was also dismissed as they were unsuccessful in the application.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment regarding a finding of need of protection, a 6-month supervision placement to the mother, and an order that the father's access be supervised at the CAS's discretion.

All issues except the father's access were settled.

The court found that the CAS established a prima facie case for continued supervised access due to the father's problematic behaviour, missed visits, and failure to complete an assessment.

The father failed to raise a genuine issue for trial.

Summary judgment was granted, ordering the father's access to be supervised at the discretion of the CAS.

The parties brought multiple interlocutory motions in a construction dispute regarding the supply of equipment.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to discharge a PPSA registration, finding a valid security agreement existed.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion for security for costs, finding insufficient evidence of impecuniosity.

The court granted the defendant's motion for particulars, as the statement of claim contained bare allegations.

The court partially granted the plaintiff's motion to compel answers to refusals from an examination.

The motion to transfer venue was deferred to the Regional Senior Judge.