Warren Milne

The Respondent sought an urgent motion for leave to list and sell two matrimonial properties.

The Applicant opposed the motion and sought various forms of relief.

The court found that the Respondent had failed to comply with several prior court orders, including a restraint on foreign divorce proceedings, a costs order, and financial disclosure.

Consequently, the Respondent's motion was dismissed.

The court, applying Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, granted the Applicant sole authority to sell one of the properties, ordered the Respondent to pay for property repairs and a child's tuition from sale proceeds, released $100,000 to the Applicant, and awarded costs to the Applicant due to the Respondent's non-compliance and the Applicant's success.

The applicant sought an anti-suit injunction to restrain the respondent from continuing divorce proceedings commenced in China, arguing that the Ontario court had jurisdiction and was the more appropriate forum.

The respondent opposed, requesting an adjournment pending the outcome of third-party lawsuits in China and claiming potential injustice if unable to pursue adultery-based compensation under Chinese law.

The court granted the anti-suit injunction, affirming its jurisdiction based on the respondent's attornment and a real and substantial connection to Ontario.

It found no unjust deprivation for the respondent, as the alleged claim for adultery-based compensation was not recognized under Canadian no-fault divorce law, and the Ontario court was capable of adjudicating foreign debts for equalization purposes without delay.

The parties disputed the date of separation and the equalization of net family property following their marriage breakdown.

The applicant claimed a separation date of September 2015, while the respondent claimed May 2015 when he discovered the applicant's extra-marital affair.

The court found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and accepted the respondent's separation date of May 20, 2015.

The court also found the respondent had a 50% beneficial interest in a condominium in Taiwan registered in the applicant's name, applying the presumption of resulting trust.

However, the court accepted that a $400,000 payment to the applicant's father from the sale of a property was a valid debt deduction for the applicant.

The applicant was ordered to pay an equalization payment and a share of post-separation property expenses.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to vary a final custody order, seeking temporary sole custody of the parties' child and supervised access for the respondent mother.

The court relied on extensive findings of fact from a related proceeding involving the mother's other child, which detailed her history of non-compliance with court orders, false allegations against both fathers, and emotionally harmful conduct.

Finding that the mother's behaviour posed an immediate risk of emotional harm to the child, the court granted the father temporary sole custody, terminated his child support obligation, ordered supervised access for the mother, and issued a restraining order.

This decision addressed costs following a prior endorsement determining that the respondent mother had not complied with the terms of a consent order requiring her to permanently relocate within a specified distance of the applicant father to receive relocation payments and select the child’s school.

After a two‑day hearing with oral evidence, the court found the mother had not permanently relocated and had attempted to mislead the father, resulting in the father being entirely successful on the substantive issues.

The father sought costs of approximately $39,637.77.

Applying the factors under Family Law Rule 24(11), including proportionality, reasonableness of the parties’ conduct, and the hours expended, the court concluded that the claimed amount was excessive despite counsel’s thorough work.

The court fixed costs at $25,000 payable by the mother, with repayment structured through monthly set‑off against child support.

The parties sought enforcement of a consent order incorporating Minutes of Settlement requiring the respondent mother to permanently relocate within 30 km of the applicant father’s residence by January 1, 2013 in order to choose the child’s school and receive relocation payments.

The dispute concerned whether the respondent had permanently relocated in compliance with the settlement terms.

After hearing oral evidence due to credibility issues, the court found the respondent had not acted in good faith and had not established a permanent residence within the meaning of the agreement, including cancelling a condominium purchase and instead renting a temporary room while proposing further moves.

The court concluded the respondent failed to comply with the settlement and consent order.

Accordingly, the respondent was not entitled to relocation payments or to choose the child’s school, and the child was to remain in the current school.

A lawyer sued a former client for unpaid legal fees arising from a family law retainer.

The defendant counterclaimed alleging negligence, harassment causing job loss, breaches of confidentiality, and excessive billing.

The court rejected all counterclaim allegations, finding no evidence of negligence, harassment, or damages.

Applying principles governing the assessment of solicitors’ accounts, including time spent, complexity, results achieved, and the client’s ability to pay, the court determined the accounts were partly excessive due to duplication and overbilling.

The fees were reduced and fixed at $50,500 plus interest under the Solicitors Act.