Wendy L. MacPherson

The applicant mother sought the return of her five-year-old daughter to China, alleging the respondent father wrongfully retained the child in Ontario after a visit.

The father argued the child's habitual residence was Ontario, or alternatively, that returning the child to China would cause serious harm.

Applying the hybrid approach, the court determined the child's habitual residence remained China.

The court found the father failed to establish that the child would suffer serious harm if returned.

The court declined to assume jurisdiction and ordered the immediate return of the child to China.

The mother brought a motion to change a 2012 joint custody order, seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the 15-year-old child.

The child had experienced severe mental health struggles, including suicide attempts, and expressed a strong desire not to see the father due to his anger and controlling behaviour.

The father alleged parental alienation by the mother.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined it was in the child's best interests to grant the mother sole decision-making responsibility.

The father's parenting time was ordered to occur only if initiated by the child, and he was prohibited from accessing the child's health and educational records without her consent.

The applicant brought an urgent motion seeking to transfer $59,953 from the respondent's locked-in retirement account (LIRA) to satisfy a temporary spousal support order made under the Divorce Act.

The respondent's LIRA was not currently 'in pay'.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the Pension Benefits Act permits garnishment of up to half of pension payments once they are 'in pay', there is no statutory authority to order the transfer or garnishment of funds from an unlocked LIRA that is not currently paying out funds.

The applicant mother sought the urgent return of her children to Florida under the Hague Convention, alleging wrongful removal and retention by the respondent father in Ontario.

Despite the children having been voluntarily returned to Florida by the father due to COVID-19 travel restrictions, the court deemed the matter urgent to formally establish habitual residence and wrongful retention, thereby enabling the Florida court to proceed with custody matters.

The court found the children's habitual residence to be Florida and that the father had wrongfully removed and retained them, issuing a final order for their return and the delivery of their Canadian passports to the mother.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for the reinstatement of parenting time arrangements, alleging the respondent mother was denying access due to concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, reviewed the materials and determined that the motion was not urgent or an emergency under the Chief Justice's Notice regarding suspended court operations.

The court clarified that "urgent and emergency matters" in family law, particularly concerning the well-being of a child, were intended to mirror the language of the Hague Convention regarding wrongful removal or retention, and did not apply to general parenting time disputes.

The motion was dismissed, and the parties were encouraged to resolve the matter cooperatively.

Following a trial regarding a home renovation dispute, the plaintiff recovered $17,142.91 on a $38,000 claim, and the defendants' counterclaim was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of over $35,000.

The court awarded the plaintiff $7,200 in costs, noting that the recovery was within the Small Claims Court jurisdiction, the plaintiff had breached the contract despite the counterclaim's dismissal, and the costs claimed were disproportionate to the recovery.

Following a Hague Convention application in which the court ordered the return of two children to Germany after finding the mother had wrongfully retained them in Ontario, the court determined the issue of costs.

The father sought over $67,000 on a partial indemnity basis, while the mother argued that each party should bear their own costs or that any award should be substantially reduced.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and Article 26 of the Hague Convention, the court found the father was the successful party but reduced the claimed costs due to excessive billing, duplication of work, inclusion of unrelated steps, and some unreasonable conduct by the father during the proceedings.

The court also considered the mother’s success on a motion involving the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and her financial circumstances.

A global costs award was made reflecting a fair and reasonable amount in the circumstances.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of his two children to Germany.

The children had travelled to Canada with the respondent mother for an educational exchange with the father's consent, which expired in August 2014.

The mother refused to return the children, arguing they were habitually resident in Canada and objected to returning.

The court found the children's habitual residence remained Germany and their retention in Canada was wrongful.

The court rejected the mother's defences under Articles 12 and 13, finding the children's objections were not substantial enough to override the Convention's purpose.

The children were ordered returned to Germany.

Following a nine‑day family law trial on a motion to change, the respondent father was successful in obtaining sole custody, continued supervised access for the mother, and termination of child and spousal support obligations.

The court invited written submissions on costs, but the self‑represented mother did not file submissions.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court considered the success of the father, the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct, the complexity of the issues, and the significant disparity in income.

While the father sought substantial or partial indemnity costs exceeding $47,000, the court determined that a reduced award was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The father brought a motion to change a final order that had granted custody to the mother.

Following the original order, the mother repeatedly made unfounded allegations of physical and sexual abuse against the father, resulting in the child being placed in the father's interim custody.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the mother's inability to foster a positive relationship between the child and the father, and the emotional harm caused by her persistent false allegations.

The father was granted sole custody, the mother's access was ordered to remain supervised, and the father's child and spousal support obligations were terminated.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering payment of an outstanding debt to the respondent for labour, materials, and services.

The central trial issue concerned whether a partial payment had been made within the limitation period, thereby preventing the claim from being statute-barred.

On appeal, the appellants argued that the deputy judge’s extensive interventions during the trial compromised trial fairness and created an appearance of bias, particularly during the examination of the defendant and credibility findings.

The court reviewed the trial transcript and concluded that the nature and tone of the interventions crossed the line from permissible clarification into improper participation.

The trial judge’s questioning formed the basis of adverse credibility findings and created the appearance that conclusions had been reached before all evidence was heard.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered before a different deputy judge.

Following a family law trial concerning child support and contribution to extraordinary expenses, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The respondent was successful in obtaining an order for ongoing child support based on imputed income and payment of section 7 expenses.

Applying Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court confirmed that the successful party is presumptively entitled to costs.

While the respondent sought full recovery costs exceeding $13,000, the court found several time entries excessive and considered the reasonableness of both parties’ conduct.

Balancing the relevant factors and the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable, the court ordered the applicant to pay reduced costs of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following competing family law motions regarding interim spousal support, business valuation, and control of corporate bank accounts, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant had partial success, obtaining interim spousal support and an order for a business valuation, while the respondent succeeded on the issue of exclusive control of the business bank account.

Applying Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules and the principle that costs should be fair and reasonable rather than strictly mathematical, the court determined that the applicant was the overall successful party.

However, the amount sought was excessive and there had been divided success.

Costs were therefore fixed at a reduced amount.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that the one-year-old child be made a Crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing she had made progress in addressing protection concerns.

The court found that the mother had failed to adequately address long-standing issues with substance abuse and mental health, and that there was no realistic possibility of the child being returned to her care.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial, and ordered Crown wardship without access.

Following the dismissal of an appeal from a Small Claims Court decision, the successful respondent sought costs of the appeal.

The unsuccessful appellants conceded entitlement to partial indemnity costs but argued that counsel’s time was excessive and that disbursements should be reduced.

The court reviewed the bill of costs and found no basis to conclude that the time spent was excessive.

Applying the principles governing costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed partial indemnity costs in favour of the respondent.

In a child protection status review proceeding, the applicant society moved for summary judgment seeking a Crown wardship order without access and correction of the child’s legal name.

The court reviewed extensive affidavit evidence showing ongoing protection concerns including parental substance abuse, mental health issues, aggressive conduct toward service providers, failure to attend access visits or cooperate with the society, and lack of progress in addressing these concerns.

The parents filed no affidavit evidence and had not exercised access for over ten months.

Applying Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules and the Child and Family Services Act, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the child continued to require protection.

The court granted summary judgment, making the child a Crown ward without access and amending the child’s legal name to match the birth registration.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding they had trespassed on the respondent's property by erecting fence posts and a gate.

The trial judge awarded damages for the cost of a survey, a culvert, and legal fees.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred in his findings of fact regarding the property line and the status of the road, and that some damages were statute-barred.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's preference for the respondent's surveyor's evidence, and noting the limitations argument was not properly raised or founded.

The applicant mother sought sole custody or joint custody with primary residence of the parties' two children, as well as child and spousal support.

The respondent father sought sole custody or joint custody with primary residence remaining with him.

The court ordered joint custody, with primary residence of one child with the father and the other with the mother, and an equal time-sharing arrangement.

The court imputed an income of $20,000 to the mother and ordered the father to pay $717 per month in child support based on a set-off, along with $455 per month in time-limited spousal support for two years.

Following a motion to change and a three-day trial concerning termination of child support and contribution to post-secondary expenses, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant sought approximately $26,000 in costs, relying in part on an offer to settle and alleging disclosure failures by the respondent.

The court found mixed success on the child support issues but noted that the respondent was unsuccessful in seeking revival of spousal support.

Considering the principles governing costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the proportionality of the time claimed, and the significant income disparity between the parties, the court reduced the claim substantially.

The respondent was ordered to pay modest costs to the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion to change a prior family order seeking termination of child support obligations and related insurance obligations.

The respondent opposed termination for one child and sought ongoing spousal support, contribution to post‑secondary education costs, and medical expenses.

The court held that the respondent failed to establish a material change in circumstances required to revive previously time‑limited spousal support.

It determined when the adult child ceased and resumed being a “child of the marriage” while working and later returning to college.

The court also apportioned post‑secondary education expenses under s. 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and adjusted child support accordingly.