William G. Shanks

This endorsement addresses the costs of previous motions in a family law proceeding.

The applicant, Mr. Hurdon, argued for no costs due to divided success or, alternatively, $5,000 in costs to the respondent.

The respondent, Ms. Crooks, sought full or enhanced partial indemnity costs, arguing she was substantially more successful and that the applicant's conduct increased costs.

The court found Ms. Crooks predominantly successful on the primary issues, including child support, sale of the family home, and successfully opposing Mr. Hurdon's claims for exclusive possession and valuation of Ms. Crooks' business.

The court awarded Ms. Crooks partial indemnity costs of $16,904.43, taking into account her offers to settle.

This case involves two motions for temporary relief in a family law dispute concerning parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and child support for an 11-year-old child.

The mother sought sole decision-making, exclusive residence, temporary suspension of the father's parenting time, and child support.

The father sought primary care, sole decision-making, and shared parenting.

The court considered the child's views and preferences, as reported by the Children's Lawyer, and the child's emotional well-being.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making, primary residence, and child support, but ordered limited parenting time for the father instead of a full suspension, and denied the mother's request for a restraining order.

The court rejected the father's claims that the mother coached the child or engineered the crisis.

This decision addresses cross-motions between common-law spouses concerning various family law issues.

The applicant sought temporary exclusive possession of the family home, valuation of the respondent's "book of business" and retroactive and ongoing spousal support.

The respondent sought joint parental decision-making, retroactive and ongoing child support, occupation rent, and the immediate sale of the family home.

The court determined the separation date as July 8, 2016.

It dismissed the applicant's requests for exclusive possession (as the home was not a matrimonial home) and the valuation of the business book (finding no joint family venture).

The court granted the applicant non-compensatory spousal support, calculated based on the respondent's income at the time of separation, not her significantly increased post-separation income.

It also granted the respondent retroactive and ongoing child support and ordered the immediate appraisal and sale of the jointly owned home, subject to the applicant's right to purchase the respondent's interest.

The parties in a high conflict family case brought competing motions for significant relief, including child support, spousal support, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and parenting schedules.

The motions were scheduled as short motions limited to one hour.

The court found that the legal and evidentiary issues, which included allegations of family violence and disputed incomes, were too complex to be resolved in a short motion format.

As a result, all motions were dismissed without costs, and the parties were directed to schedule a case conference to properly address the issues.

The applicant wife brought a motion for temporary exclusive possession of the jointly owned matrimonial home and temporary spousal support.

The parties had been living under the same roof for almost two years post-separation.

The court dismissed the motion for exclusive possession, finding insufficient evidence that the husband's alleged behaviour constituted violence under s. 24(3) of the Family Law Act.

The court granted temporary spousal support, ordering the husband to pay $1,500 per month and half of the home's carrying costs.

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary child support from the respondent step-mother.

The parties had signed a separation agreement two years post-separation wherein the applicant acknowledged the respondent had no obligation to support his children.

Given the conflicting affidavit evidence regarding whether the respondent demonstrated a settled intention to treat the children as her own, and the clear terms of the separation agreement, the court found no prima facie case for temporary relief.

The motion was dismissed, with the issue left for the imminent trial.

The parties were common law spouses who cohabited for 13 years and had two children.

Following separation, the applicant father sought child support, spousal support, and half the increased value of the respondent mother's pension based on unjust enrichment.

The court imputed income to the father for child support purposes, finding him underemployed after starting his own business.

The court dismissed the father's claims for spousal support, finding no compensatory or non-compensatory basis, and dismissed his claim for a share of the mother's pension, finding no clear link between his contributions and the pension's growth.

This decision addresses cross-motions concerning interim parenting arrangements for two children following the parents' separation.

The Mother sought to severely restrict the Father's parenting time, citing concerns about his mental health and past incidents.

The Father, while acknowledging mental health challenges, asserted they did not impair his parenting ability and sought shared parenting.

The court, prioritizing the children's best interests, found that the Father's mental health concerns warranted a cautious approach but did not justify the previously imposed limited access.

The court expanded the Father's parenting time to include regular overnights and ordered communication via Our Family Wizard, emphasizing the need to minimize parental conflict and stabilize the children's routine.

Financial issues were adjourned.

The father (T.D.) brought a motion to set aside a default order that had granted sole custody to the mother (A.C.) and ordered child support, and to extend time for filing his Answer and financial documents.

The default order was issued after the father failed to comply with a consent order to file documents.

Applying the five-factor test from Mountain View Farms Ltd. v. McQueen, the court found the motion was brought promptly and there was a plausible, though not strong, excuse for the default.

The court set aside the sole custody order, finding an arguable defence with an "air of reality" regarding custody and access, but upheld the child support order due to greater prejudice to the mother and the availability of an annual review.

The father was ordered to file his documents within 10 days and pay previous costs.

This application concerned custody, access, child support, and spousal support between separated cohabiting parents.

The court granted joint custody, establishing a gradual transition to a shared parenting schedule (week on/week off) by April 2019.

Child support was ordered from the father to the mother, with an offset for shared parenting.

Spousal support was awarded to the mother, time-limited and decreasing over three years, ending December 31, 2021, subject to a material change in circumstances.

The court found the mother had been controlling regarding access but that both parents could effectively co-parent.

The respondent husband brought a motion seeking to vary temporary spousal support from the amount set in the parties' separation agreement, citing a reduction in his income due to disability.

He also sought an order requiring the applicant wife to preserve land claim settlement monies she received pursuant to a prior court order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the preservation request was an improper collateral attack on an unappealed order.

The court also declined to vary the spousal support on a temporary basis, finding the current amount was close to the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range and the wife had a monthly deficit.

The moving party (former husband) brought a motion to change, seeking to vary and terminate spousal support payable to the responding party (former wife).

He argued that his income had decreased, her income had increased due to RRSP withdrawals, and she was capable of working.

The responding party argued her health conditions (fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome) prevented her from working and her income had not materially changed.

The court found no material change in the moving party's income, noting his business had returned to previous levels and he continued to make maximum RRSP contributions.

The court also declined to impute income to the responding party, finding her health issues prevented employment and her RRSP withdrawals were necessary for expenses.

The motion to change was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion seeking payment of a mortgage on the former matrimonial home, child support arrears for an adult child's post-secondary education, and a judicial sale or security.

The respondent paid the mortgage prior to the hearing.

The court dismissed the claims for child support arrears and security, finding that the adult child's tuition was being paid via student loans and that the parties' prior consent order explicitly stated no further child support would be paid.

Robert Baxter moved to change a 2014 final order for child custody and support, citing undue hardship due to other support obligations and work-related travel expenses, and seeking to terminate support for one child and vary retroactive support.

Cindy Lisa Maureen Sakakeep opposed the motion and sought increased retroactive and ongoing child support based on Mr. Baxter's higher actual income.

The court dismissed Mr. Baxter's undue hardship claim for failure to provide financial disclosure and to meet the household standard of living test.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding one child ceasing to be a dependent and Mr. Baxter's increased income.

The court fixed significant retroactive arrears against Mr. Baxter and issued an interim, interim order for ongoing support for the remaining children, imputing income to Mr. Baxter due to insufficient disclosure regarding WSIB benefits.

Costs were awarded to Ms. Sakakeep.

This motion concerned a dispute over the temporary residence of four children following parental separation.

The Applicant mother sought to vary a temporary order to allow the children to move from Dorion to Sudbury, where she had recently relocated.

The Respondent father opposed this move and sought to keep the children in Dorion.

The court, considering the best interests of the children and the principle of maintaining the status quo, ordered that the children remain in the matrimonial home in Dorion, with parents rotating in and out on an alternative weekly schedule.

The decision emphasized the prematurity of a permanent relocation decision pending a report from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

In this family law motion, the Applicant sought to impute income to the Respondent for alleged underemployment and requested contributions to daycare costs.

The Respondent sought child and spousal support, maintenance of health benefits for herself and the child, and designation as a life insurance beneficiary.

The court found the Applicant failed to establish deliberate underemployment, calculating support based on the Respondent's actual current income.

Interim, interim orders were made for child and spousal support, retroactive to March 1, 2016.

The court also ordered both parties to maintain health benefits for the child and addressed life insurance beneficiaries.

Following settlement of a motion to change a prior child support order at the start of trial, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party sought full or partial indemnity costs, arguing the proceeding was necessary to obtain updated support based on the responding party’s income and to compel disclosure.

The responding party argued that the settlement largely reflected his offer and that no costs should be ordered.

The court held that the motion to change was necessary to secure proper support and disclosure, but excluded costs related to case and settlement conferences under the Family Law Rules.

The court awarded reduced costs to the moving party, enforceable as child support.

On a family law motion, the applicant sought to strike the respondent's answer for non-compliance with a prior disclosure order, amend her application to add a constructive trust claim against the respondent's pension, and obtain costs.

The amendment was granted on consent, and the disclosure issue became moot when an appraisal report was finally produced before the hearing.

The court held that a party cannot unilaterally decide that court-ordered valuation evidence is unnecessary, and found that the delay caused unnecessary expense and slowed the proceeding.

Costs of the motion were fixed in favour of the applicant.

On a family law motion, the responding party sought to strike the applicant's amended application for non-compliance with a prior disclosure order, failure to file an affidavit listing documents, and failure to pay prior costs.

The court declined to strike the pleading immediately, but ordered full compliance with the earlier disclosure order by a fixed deadline and authorized a future motion to strike upon default.

The applicant's separate production motion was adjourned.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the moving party in the amount of $1,250 plus HST, payable after disposition of the adjourned production motion.

The applicant brought a summary judgment motion in a family law proceeding after the respondent failed to file an Answer despite being ordered to do so at a case conference.

The court found there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on custody, support, or related financial matters.

The applicant, who had always been the primary caregiver, was granted sole custody, with the order silent as to access due to the respondent’s lack of involvement.

Child support was ordered in the amount of $1,734 per month based on the respondent’s income, along with proportionate contribution to section 7 expenses, annual financial disclosure obligations, and designation of the children as beneficiaries under employment benefits and life insurance.

Costs of $2,500 were also awarded to the applicant.