William Harvey Abbott

The applicant father brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce an alleged parenting agreement for a 2-2-3 shared parenting schedule, or alternatively, for a temporary order for the same.

The respondent mother opposed shared parenting, citing allegations of intimate partner violence and substance abuse, and sought to restrict the father's parenting time.

The court reviewed the history of the parties' parenting and the mother's shifting positions.

Applying the best interests of the child test under section 16 of the Divorce Act, the court found no ongoing risk to the children and ordered a 2-2-3 shared parenting schedule, along with interim set-off child support.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support following the parties' separation.

The respondent claimed inability to pay and disputed entitlement.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie case for spousal support based on her need and the length of the marriage.

Due to inconsistencies in the respondent's financial disclosure and reported expenses far exceeding his reported income, the court imputed his income at $142,598 based on the average of his reported yearly expenses.

Interim child support and spousal support were ordered to commence following the sale of the matrimonial home.

Following a successful focused trial that invalidated a marriage contract, the applicant sought her costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the respondent's behaviour, which included inducing the applicant to sign an unconscionable contract and the estate trustees' subsequent draconian actions.

Finding that the applicant beat her offer to settle and that the respondent's behaviour warranted sanction, the court awarded the applicant her costs on a full indemnity basis, fixed at $129,293.40.

Decision on costs following a family law trial involving divorce and corollary relief including child support, property equalization, and the validity of a second mortgage on the matrimonial home.

The applicant was the successful party and sought full indemnity costs of $123,484.47.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith by failing to comply with disclosure obligations despite court orders, and that the applicant's trial result met or exceeded her offers to settle.

The respondent's costs submissions improperly attempted to re-litigate the trial.

Full recovery costs of $123,484.47 were awarded, payable from the net proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home with any remainder as a debt.

Following a family law trial, the court resolved disputes over separation date, equalization, child support, section 7 expenses, imputation of income, and disposition of the matrimonial home.

The court found the separation date was June 15, 2018, accepted an imputed annual income of $44,500 for support purposes, and ordered retroactive base support and section 7 contributions.

In light of disclosure failures and non-compliance, the court accepted the moving party’s net family property calculations and ordered an equalization payment.

The court vested title to the matrimonial home in the moving party, granted sole carriage and exclusive possession pending sale, and declared a registered family mortgage null and void.

Pre-judgment interest was denied.

The Respondent Father brought a motion seeking disclosure of the complete file from the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) to challenge its recommendations regarding decision-making responsibility and parenting time for the child.

The Applicant Mother opposed the motion, arguing privilege and privacy.

The court found that the Mother had waived any privilege or privacy interest by providing the records to the OCL and that the records were relevant and necessary for the Father to challenge the OCL's findings.

The Father's motion for disclosure was granted, and the Mother was ordered to pay costs.

This decision addresses whether a previous costs award of $34,800, ordered against the Applicant for breaches of parenting orders, could be characterized as support for enforcement purposes under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996.

The Respondent argued that the costs related to child support issues in an underlying, outstanding motion to change, and that the broad discretion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules permitted such characterization, asserting that Clark v. Clark was overruled by Bouchard v. Sgovio.

The court dismissed the Respondent's request, holding that for costs to be enforceable as support, support must have been claimed and adjudicated in the specific proceeding where the costs were awarded, not merely in a related, outstanding motion.

The court affirmed that Rule 1(8) does not allow for characterizing costs in a manner inconsistent with the substance of the proceeding in which they were awarded, and that Bouchard did not overrule Clark on this point.

The respondent brought a motion to vary a previous order concerning the amalgamation and ownership of corporations, specifically seeking to remove the applicant's interest in the amalgamated entity.

The applicant opposed this motion and brought a cross-motion for alternative relief.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding that it was functus officio and that the respondent had not demonstrated a mistake in the original order under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules.

The court only corrected a typographical error in the original order, requiring the parties to negotiate a cooperative agreement for the amalgamated corporation.

The applicant sought summary judgment to enforce a settlement agreement reached at mediation with her common-law partner.

The respondent denied a binding agreement, claiming lack of understanding, duress, and unconscionability.

The court found a binding agreement based on objective evidence, counsel's ostensible authority, and the parties' post-mediation conduct, dismissing the respondent's claims of duress and unconscionability.

The settlement, which included the sale of a farm and division of proceeds, was enforced.

The parties brought motions for summary judgment regarding child support.

The applicant sought to vary a consent final order to cap his child support income due to a significant income increase, arguing against "wealth transfer." The respondent sought to enforce the existing order and collect arrears.

The court found no material change in circumstances to justify varying the order, as the original order already contemplated income fluctuations and provided a mechanism for adjustment.

The applicant's motion to change was dismissed.

The court found the applicant's claimed expenses unreasonable due to lack of documentary proof, adding them back to his income for support calculation.

The respondent's motion to enforce was granted, and the applicant was ordered to pay $219,688.00 in child support arrears.

The respondent brought a motion seeking the sale of the matrimonial home under the Partition Act.

The applicant opposed, arguing the motion was premature and prejudicial due to outstanding financial disclosure and unresolved equalization issues under the Family Law Act.

The court, while acknowledging the prima facie right to partition, emphasized the nuanced approach required in family law cases.

It found that ordering a sale before full financial and valuation information was available would risk prejudice to the applicant's equalization claim and cause undue hardship.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice, allowing the respondent to re-bring it after a scheduled settlement conference and expert reports are available.

The applicant wife and respondent husband brought cross-motions for the release of funds held in trust from the sale of their jointly owned matrimonial home and commercial property.

The applicant sought $1.5 million and an order that the balance remain in trust pending final equalization, while the respondent sought an equal distribution of the funds.

The court ordered $1.5 million released to the applicant, $1.25 million held in trust to secure potential equalization payments, and the balance released to the respondent.

The court also ordered the respondent to produce an original promissory note allegedly evidencing a $500,000 loan from his late father.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking to find the applicant father in breach of previous non-dissipation and disclosure orders, to impute his income for child support purposes, to summarily dismiss his spousal support claim, and to order reimbursement for post-separation household expenses.

The court found no breach of the previous orders.

The court declined to impute income, finding the father's reduced income from his restaurant business was due to pandemic-related closures and not intentional underemployment.

The court also refused to summarily dismiss the spousal support claim, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, and deferred the issue of household expenses to the trial judge.

The motion was dismissed in its entirety.

The parties, unmarried parents of a three-year-old child, separated after a brief relationship marked by high conflict and incidents of domestic violence.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and permission to relocate with the child from North Bay to Sudbury, while the father sought joint decision-making and equal parenting time in North Bay.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility, finding that the parties' inability to communicate and the father's lack of trust made joint decision-making unworkable.

The court also authorized the relocation to Sudbury, concluding it was in the child's best interests given the mother's role as primary caregiver, her need for family support, and the father's failure to foster a cooperative relationship.

The father was granted generous parenting time and ordered to pay child support.

This is a costs endorsement following a come-back motion concerning ex parte injunctions.

The applicant successfully continued a Family Law Act preservation order against her former spouse but failed to continue a Mareva order against his family members and corporate affiliates.

The court determined costs based on divided success, reasonableness of conduct, and settlement offers, ultimately awarding the applicant costs against the former spouse and the other respondents costs against the applicant, with deferred payment terms for the applicant.

The parties disputed the funding of their children's post-secondary education.

The children had significant RESPs and large informal trust funds gifted by their maternal grandfather.

The applicant father argued the children had the means to fully fund their education, while the respondent mother argued the parents should still contribute.

The court rejected both all-or-nothing positions, ordering that education costs be funded first by scholarships and RESPs, followed by a $7,500 annual contribution from the parents shared proportionally to their incomes, with the children funding the balance from their own means.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay $15,000 in costs to the responding parties.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an order for his 15-year-old daughter to attend reunification therapy and for equal parenting time, alleging parental alienation by the respondent mother.

The court dismissed the motion for reunification therapy, finding no expert evidence to support the allegations of alienation and noting the lack of a detailed therapy proposal.

Relying on a Voice of the Child report indicating the daughter's reluctance to spend time with the father due to his historical lack of involvement, the court ordered limited parenting time subject entirely to the daughter's wishes.

The plaintiff was successful on a motion to extend the time to bring her claim under the Succession Law Reform Act and sought costs of $4,050.21.

The defendant opposed, arguing the plaintiff's delay necessitated the motion.

The court declined to award costs, finding that the plaintiff was the author of her own misfortune by failing to act within the statutory limitation period, making it unfair to hold the defendant responsible for the costs of the motion.

The plaintiff widow brought a motion for leave to extend the time to bring a dependant's relief claim against her late husband's estate under s. 61(2) of the Succession Law Reform Act, and to transfer the action.

The estate opposed the extension, citing an unexplained delay.

The court granted the motion, finding that despite the lack of explanation for the delay, there was no non-compensable prejudice to the estate, as the main asset (the matrimonial home) remained undistributed and was subject to an ongoing partition and sale application.