Walter Drescher

The moving party in a family law proceeding brought a motion seeking a vesting order to transfer ownership of an inherited property into the responding party's name, arguing it was necessary to make the property available to their joint creditor.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under the Estates Administration Act because the responding party only had a beneficial interest in the residue of the estate, not a specific property interest.

Furthermore, the court held it lacked jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act and the Family Law Act because there was no existing order establishing a payment liability against the responding party.

Following a trial where the court declined to set aside a cohabitation agreement, the successful party sought costs of $29,724.65.

The opposing party argued for a reduced award of $12,000 payable at $100 per month due to financial hardship.

The court found the opposing party acted unreasonably during the litigation by insisting on arguing baseless reasons for setting aside the agreement.

However, the court noted some of the claimed fees were already addressed in a prior order or could have been performed by junior staff.

The court ordered costs of $15,000.

The applicant husband sought to set aside a cohabitation agreement and its spousal support waiver under sections 56(4) and 33(4) of the Family Law Act.

He argued lack of financial disclosure, failure to understand the agreement due to a learning disability and memory lapse, unconscionability, undue influence, and duress.

The court found the husband's claims of memory loss not credible, noted he received adequate independent legal advice, and determined there was no material non-disclosure or unconscionable conduct by the respondent wife.

The court dismissed the claims, upholding the agreement and the spousal support waiver.

The respondent brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 court suspension seeking to set aside a final order, permission to serve responding materials, and an order to prevent the applicant from depleting family assets.

The court found the matter urgent, citing potential significant financial hardship to the respondent if deferred.

The court ordered a temporary freeze on asset removal and directed the matter to a case conference, followed by a motion hearing if unresolved.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to prohibit the respondent mother from relocating with their two-year-old child from Simcoe to Norwich prior to a case conference.

The parties had separated and were disputing parenting time, with the father seeking equal shared parenting.

The court found the proposed move premature and lacking urgency, noting that the status quo and competing custody claims needed to be determined on a complete evidentiary record.

The motion was granted, and the mother was prohibited from moving the child pending further order.

The applicant father sought joint custody, equal parenting time, and spousal support following a high-conflict separation.

The respondent mother sought to maintain sole custody and requested child support based on imputed income.

The court found the parties unable to communicate effectively and awarded sole custody to the mother, with slightly increased access for the father.

The court imputed income to the father for a period of deliberate underemployment to calculate child support arrears, and awarded spousal support to the father based on the mother's higher income, setting off the respective amounts.

A child protection agency sought to apprehend a child based on allegations of parental alcohol abuse and impaired driving.

The respondent mother challenged the apprehension on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that the agency failed to comply with statutory prerequisites under the Child and Family Services Act, specifically the requirement to bring the matter to court within five days of apprehension and the requirement to obtain a warrant or demonstrate grounds for warrantless apprehension.

The court found that the agency unlawfully suspended the mother's court-ordered custodial time without consent, that this suspension constituted an apprehension, and that the agency failed to bring the matter to court within the statutory five-day period.

The court held that this breach of statutory requirements deprived it of jurisdiction and dismissed the protection application.

A trial decision addressing custody, access, child support, and spousal support following an application by the mother to modify a separation agreement.

The parties had shared joint custody with a three-day rotation since separation in 2012.

The mother sought sole custody or primary residence; the father sought to maintain joint custody with a week-about schedule.

The court maintained joint custody but modified the time-sharing arrangement to provide the mother with most school nights to facilitate homework assistance, while the father retained significant weekend time.

The court ordered child support under the shared custody provisions of the Child Support Guidelines and awarded spousal support for a seven-year term.

The parties separated after a three-year common law relationship.

The applicant sought a writ of possession for his home, while the respondent sought interim child support for her two children from a previous relationship and interim spousal support.

The court granted the writ of possession but delayed its execution for 30 days to allow the respondent to relocate.

The court dismissed the claim for interim child support, finding the respondent failed to establish a prima facie case that the applicant stood in the place of a parent.

The court granted interim spousal support, awarding a lump sum of $1,200 and $600 per month for three months to assist with relocation, reducing to $114 per month thereafter.

Three young persons were sentenced following guilty pleas to sexual assault and sexual touching of a young person.

The offences involved repeated sexual assaults of a younger foster sibling over a 15-month period in a foster home.

The court found this to be an exceptional case meeting the custody threshold under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court imposed custodial sentences ranging from 15 to 21 months, with varying periods of open or closed custody followed by community supervision and probation, along with conditions including no contact with the victim, weapons prohibitions, and DNA orders.

Following a family law trial concerning the validity of a separation agreement and associated financial obligations, the court addressed costs after the parties were unable to agree.

The applicant had succeeded on the primary issue of the agreement’s validity and was overall more successful on the related monetary issues, although there was mixed success on collateral matters and some issues were settled during the trial.

The court held that the applicant was entitled to costs but declined to award substantial indemnity costs.

Considering proportionality, the parties’ conduct, and the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, the court fixed partial indemnity costs in a lump sum.

The court determined costs following a family law trial concerning child support.

The successful party sought full indemnity costs of approximately $45,525 or alternatively partial indemnity costs of approximately $34,474, while the opposing party argued that no costs should be ordered.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, the court held that the successful party was entitled to costs despite not obtaining the full relief sought.

The court considered that the unsuccessful party had taken an aggressive litigation position and underestimated income, while also noting the absence of an offer to settle and excessive time spent litigating income issues.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis at $20,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant sought retroactive child support and contribution toward post-secondary education expenses for the parties’ adult child.

The respondent had failed to provide annual financial disclosure as required by a prior support order and continued paying child support based on an outdated imputed income despite increases in income and retained corporate earnings.

The court found the respondent engaged in blameworthy conduct and imputed additional income, including retained earnings, personal benefits, and income splitting with a spouse.

Applying the principles in S. (D.B.) v. G. (S.R.), the court ordered retroactive child support for three years and determined the adult child regained “child of the marriage” status upon returning to full-time university studies.

The respondent was ordered to contribute a fixed annual amount toward the child’s post‑secondary education expenses.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent’s pleadings in a long-running family law proceeding involving property division and enforcement of court orders following separation.

The court reviewed numerous prior orders relating to the sale and refinancing of the matrimonial home and a rental property, as well as the respondent’s obligations to account for rental income and comply with court directions.

The evidence demonstrated repeated failures by the respondent to comply with orders, provide proper financial disclosure, vacate property as ordered, and bring a motion previously directed by the court.

The court found that the respondent had intentionally misled the court, obstructed the proceedings, and engaged in conduct amounting to abuse of process.

Applying Rule 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court concluded that the breaches were intentional and without reasonable excuse and struck the respondent’s pleadings.