William Clements Fanjoy

This endorsement from a settlement conference addresses financial disclosure and parenting issues.

Regarding financial disclosure, the court directed the parties' Certified Business Valuators to confer and agree on necessary disclosure, with any disagreements to be addressed at a subsequent conference or motion.

On parenting, the court vacated the applicant's scheduled summary judgment motion for final custody and supervised access, exercising case management powers under the Family Law Rules.

The judge emphasized that the custody issue was not urgent, and vacating the motion would encourage alternative dispute resolution and ensure proportionate use of court resources, especially given court backlogs and upcoming changes to the Divorce Act.

This is a costs endorsement following an order of May 25, 2020.

The Applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $3613.74 plus $500 for costs submissions, based on success on the motion.

The Respondent argued for no costs, or that costs be reserved to the trial judge, or offset against child support arrears, and highlighted her limited means.

The court considered the Applicant's substantial success and the Respondent's limited means, fixing costs at $3500.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes, payable by the Respondent to the Applicant within 60 days.

The applicant sought to return their child to an equal week-about parenting schedule, citing urgency due to the pandemic.

The respondent consented to the return to the schedule but cross-moved for a Voice of the Child Report, a s. 30 Children’s Law Reform Act assessment, or a s. 112 Courts of Justice Act report.

The court granted the applicant's request for the immediate return to the established parenting schedule with police enforcement and ordered compliance with COVID-19 directives and non-disparagement.

The respondent's cross-motion for reports was dismissed without prejudice due to lack of reasonable notice and the absence of a case conference.

The appellant appealed an arbitration award concerning spousal support, life insurance, and medical benefits.

The arbitrator had conducted a de novo review of the separation agreement's support provisions, leading to a step-down and eventual termination of spousal support.

The appellant argued the arbitrator erred in interpreting the scope of the review and in exercising discretion.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the arbitrator correctly interpreted the separation agreement as allowing a de novo review and did not make palpable and overriding errors in her discretionary decisions regarding support and costs.

The appellant husband brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order requiring him to pay $8,500 per month in temporary spousal support and to obtain an income valuation.

The court granted leave to appeal on two issues: whether the motions judge erred in averaging the husband's income over three years instead of using his most recent line 150 income, and whether the motions judge erred by ordering an income valuation when neither party had requested such relief.

The court found both issues raised reasons to doubt the correctness of the order and involved matters of general importance.

A request to stay the support order pending appeal was dismissed.

A spouse in a 30‑year common law relationship sought temporary spousal support following separation, alleging the respondent failed to make full financial disclosure and understated his income through a closely‑held corporation.

The respondent asserted a dramatic decline in business income and inability to pay support.

The court held that incomplete disclosure justified drawing an adverse inference and applying the Federal Child Support Guidelines methodology using the respondent’s three‑year average Line 150 income.

The court rejected the claimed current income and ordered temporary spousal support based on the historical income average, together with extensive disclosure obligations and valuation of the respondent’s business and income.

In this family law proceeding, the moving party sought an extension of time to perfect an appeal from an order imposing conditions that had to be satisfied before a long motion to vary final support orders could proceed.

The responding party sought security for costs and additional conditions, and argued that the order under appeal was interlocutory.

Applying the jurisprudence distinguishing final from interlocutory orders, the court held that the order remained interlocutory notwithstanding that non-compliance could result in a permanent stay.

Because an appeal of an interlocutory order to this court was meritless, the extension motion was refused, the related motion became moot, and costs were fixed at $24,000 all inclusive.

Following an urgent family law motion in which the applicant successfully obtained an order requiring the respondent to release the child for return to the United Kingdom pursuant to an earlier court endorsement, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, alleging the respondent acted in bad faith by refusing to comply with the prior order.

The court held that although the respondent intentionally breached the earlier endorsement, the breach was motivated by the child’s stated wish not to return to the United Kingdom and did not constitute bad faith.

Applying the factors under Rule 24(11), the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful applicant.