V. Younger

The applicant brought a motion for financial disclosure, which was required by a jointly retained business valuator for a business valuation.

The respondent had failed to provide the requested disclosure for 16 months, offering unconvincing excuses such as lost documents or availability at the matrimonial home.

The court found the disclosure relevant, proportionate, and necessary, emphasizing that full financial disclosure is the "lynchpin" of family litigation.

The respondent's last-minute cross-motion was declined.

The applicant's motion was granted, and the respondent was ordered to pay full indemnity costs due to the unnecessary delay and expense caused by the non-disclosure.

Following a successful motion for access to a child, the respondent sought costs of $11,723.95 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant suggested a range of $4,000 to $5,500.

The court found the respondent's claimed hours to be unreasonable and awarded costs of $6,780.00 inclusive of HST on a substantial indemnity basis.

The respondent father brought a motion for access to his child after the applicant mother unilaterally terminated his regular access in January 2020, alleging violence and abuse.

The court found the mother's allegations lacked independent evidentiary support and that her termination of access was improper and vindictive.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court granted a temporary order for graduated access, beginning with alternate Sundays and progressing to alternate weekends, along with weekly telephone access.

Pre-trial motions in a child protection proceeding involving two children (N. and H.) brought by the Children's Aid Society of Peel.

The Society sought to admit prior court decisions as evidence of past parenting and exclude further evidence on matters already adjudicated.

The respondent father sought to exclude prior decisions and adduce evidence regarding parenting of siblings, citing a recent Court of Appeal decision quashing the parents' criminal manslaughter conviction and ordering a new trial.

The court applied the principle of res judicata and found that prior findings regarding the care of children M., Am., and N. were not displaced by the fresh evidence regarding the cause of death.

The court admitted prior decisions as evidence of past parenting and estopped the parents from calling evidence on matters already adjudicated.