William Harvey Abbott

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.

The parties separated after eight years of marriage and have one child with Type 1 diabetes.

Both parties brought motions for interim relief regarding parenting, support, and the matrimonial home.

The court ordered joint decision-making and a graduated parenting schedule leading to equal time.

For support purposes, the court imputed an income of $25,000 to the applicant and determined the respondent's income at $1,192,666 based on a three-year average, excluding certain non-recurring amounts.

The court ordered interim child and spousal support, the sale of the matrimonial home, and an advance of $120,000 to the applicant for interim disbursements.

Following a settlement on parenting issues where the respondent admitted to a campaign of parental alienation, the applicant sought full indemnity costs.

The court awarded the applicant $146,013.55 in full indemnity costs, noting the respondent's unreasonable and bad faith conduct throughout the litigation.

Additionally, the court varied a previous costs order against the applicant to $0.00, as it had been based on the respondent's false affidavit.

The applicant brought a motion within a family law application for equalization of net family property, seeking the partition and sale of a jointly owned property and the vesting of the respondent's corporate shares in her name.

The applicant argued these orders were necessary to preserve her entitlement to an equalization payment due to the respondent's depletion of assets and failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a sale would cause undue hardship to the respondent, who suffered from severe alcoholism, and that the applicant failed to demonstrate the necessity of the orders to secure her claim.

A non-depletion order was issued against the respondent.

The respondent husband brought a motion to transfer a family law application for spousal support and equalization from Kingston to North Bay.

The applicant wife had properly commenced the application in Kingston, where she resided.

The court applied the test for transferring venue, requiring the moving party to demonstrate that the proposed venue is substantially better.

The court found that the husband's reasons, including his business location, family property, and childcare responsibilities, did not outweigh the significant difficulty a transfer would pose for the wife.

The motion was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the respondent father's motion, the applicant mother sought costs.

The court rejected the father's argument that success was divided, noting that every request made by the father in the underlying motion was dismissed.

The court awarded the mother partial indemnity costs of $17,000, taking into account the parties' financial means and the mother's reasonable settlement offers.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking expanded access to the parties' child, retroactive and ongoing spousal support, and an advance equalization payment.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety.

The court declined to expand access pending a court-ordered section 30 assessment, noting the father had delayed the assessment by failing to pay his share of the retainer.

The claims for spousal support and an advance equalization payment were dismissed due to conflicting evidence requiring a trial and the father's failure to comply with a prior financial disclosure order.

The applicant mother and respondent father both brought motions regarding interim parenting of their two young children.

The mother sought primary residence with alternate weekend access for the father, while the father sought a shared parenting arrangement.

The court ordered a graduated access schedule for the younger child to eventually synchronize with the older child's schedule, emphasizing the need to accommodate the mother's return to work and the children's best interests.

The court also ordered the father to discharge a property encumbrance as previously agreed.

The respondent father sought an urgent order for the resumption of parenting time for the parties' 12-year-old child, Porter, after the applicant mother unilaterally withheld access citing COVID-19 concerns.

The court, applying principles from Ribeiro v. Wright, affirmed the presumption of maintaining existing parenting arrangements.

While the mother's initial COVID-19 concerns were addressed, her subsequent arguments based on the child's preferences, anxiety, and asthma were deemed non-urgent and lacking specific evidence.

The court ordered the immediate resumption of the father's parenting time with a minor schedule adjustment, but denied requests for make-up time and a police enforcement clause.

The respondent brought an urgent motion seeking an order for the applicant to post security for costs of $75,000, citing the applicant's impending house sale and alleged non-compliance with previous orders.

The court dismissed the urgency motion, finding that a motion for security for costs was not urgent given the suspension of trials and that the purpose of security for costs is to secure future legal costs, not to provide "execution before judgment" for other alleged debts.

The court clarified that the inability to post security for costs primarily disadvantages the party ordered to provide it, not the moving party at this preliminary stage.

The Father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' four-year-old daughter to Arizona, her habitual residence, after the Mother unilaterally removed her to Ontario.

The Mother sought a declaration that Ontario had jurisdiction and argued that the Hague application was commenced more than one year after the wrongful removal, and that the child was settled in Ontario.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was Arizona, the removal was wrongful, and the Father did not consent or acquiesce.

The court determined that the Hague proceedings were commenced within one year of the removal.

Even if not, the court found the child was not sufficiently settled in Ontario to dismiss the application, emphasizing the Convention's objectives of deterrence and rapid return, especially for a young child whose environment is primarily family-centric.

The court ordered the child's return to Arizona.

Following motions for exclusive possession, parenting, and support, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $35,000, while the respondent argued no costs should be awarded due to divided success.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party overall, having succeeded on exclusive possession and the choice of assessor, though success was divided on parenting and support.

Accounting for the divided success and an unnecessary first attendance, the court awarded the applicant costs of $12,000.

The parties separated in 2015 and continued to reside in the jointly owned matrimonial home.

At trial, the court determined the parties' net family property, including the division of contents, vehicle valuation, and date of marriage deductions.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment and half of the post-separation capital expenses for the home, but not utilities.

The applicant was granted exclusive possession of the home pending its sale and retained a right of first refusal to purchase it.

The payor brought a motion to change a 1999 spousal support order, seeking to terminate his $700 monthly payments upon his retirement at age 60.

The recipient opposed the motion, arguing she remained disabled and unable to work, and sought an increase in support based on the payor's post-separation income increases.

The court ruled that the recipient's psychiatric expert report was partially inadmissible for failing to comply with the Family Law Rules for litigation experts.

The court found the payor's retirement constituted a material change in circumstances and terminated the spousal support, noting he had paid support for 20 years—well beyond the duration suggested by the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines for a 12.5-year marriage.

The applicant sought interim child and spousal support, and the respondent brought a cross-motion for parenting orders.

The court previously granted the applicant exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and a temporary shared parenting schedule.

This endorsement addresses the remaining support issues, the respondent's income for support purposes, and the selection of a s. 30 assessor.

The court determined the respondent's income for support purposes based on his investment portfolio's net equity and historical rate of return.

Interim set-off child support and mid-range spousal support were ordered, with the applicant taking over matrimonial home expenses.

The court also ordered Dr. Morris to conduct the s. 30 assessment due to Dr. Polak's unavailability.

Procedural orders for document production, questioning, and a settlement conference were made on consent.

The parties separated but continued to live in the matrimonial home with their 11-year-old child.

Due to escalating conflict, both parties brought motions seeking physical separation; the applicant mother sought exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, while the respondent father sought a temporary nesting order.

The court granted the mother exclusive possession, finding that a nesting order would perpetuate conflict and that the father had superior financial means to secure alternative accommodation.

The court also ordered a week-about shared parenting schedule, finding it in the child's best interests to maintain maximum contact with both capable parents.

The applicant was successful on a motion to stay the respondent's motion to change and sought costs of $8,138.42 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The respondent argued the quantum was excessive and cited an inability to pay that would impact his child support obligations.

The court found the applicant's offer to settle lacked clarity to trigger full recovery costs, but noted the applicant acted reasonably by making an offer.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonable expectations, the court fixed costs at $4,500.

The court declined to make the costs enforceable as child support, as the underlying motion predominantly concerned access.

The respondent brought a motion to change a final order to seek access to the child and terminate child support.

The applicant brought a motion to stay the respondent's motion to change on the basis that he was in continuous breach of previous court orders, including failing to pay child support and costs.

The court distinguished between striking pleadings before a final custody order is made and staying a defaulting party's motion to change an existing final order.

The court granted the applicant's motion, staying the respondent's motion to change until he pays $12,928.20 in outstanding costs and child support arrears.

The applicant sought summary judgment for $500,000 from the deceased husband's estate, representing a life insurance policy he was contractually obligated to maintain for her benefit under a separation agreement but failed to obtain.

The respondent estate argued the clause was merely security for spousal support and subject to the Succession Law Reform Act clawback.

The court found the life insurance clause to be a "stand-alone" obligation, not solely security for support, and granted summary judgment for the applicant for the $500,000.

The issue of retroactive cost of living adjustments was reserved for further submissions.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs of $3,000.00 following a motion for temporary child and spousal support, while the respondent argued for no costs.

The court found that success on the underlying motion was divided, as the applicant did not obtain all the support claimed, and income was imputed to her as sought by the respondent.

The applicant also failed to make an offer to settle and acted unreasonably regarding her alleged inability to work and questionable expenses.

Applying the principles of costs in family law, the court determined that the presumption of costs for a successful party did not apply due to divided success and the applicant's unreasonable behaviour.

Consequently, the court ordered no costs to either party.