William Harvey Abbott

The applicant wife sought to set aside a cohabitation agreement executed shortly before the parties purchased a home and later married.

The agreement provided that each party would retain their initial contribution to the home and share the remaining equity 70/30 in favour of the respondent husband.

The applicant argued she did not understand the nature and consequences of the agreement and received inadequate independent legal advice.

The court found the independent legal advice was deficient but concluded the applicant was not under duress, the terms were not unconscionable, and the respondent did not take advantage of her.

The court declined to set aside the agreement.

The appellant appealed a final order terminating the respondent's obligation to pay spousal support to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court determined it lacked jurisdiction under section 19 of the Courts of Justice Act, as the order appealed from did not order the payment of money or dismiss a claim for the payment of money.

The appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The responding parent brought a motion to change seeking child support, disclosure of the moving parent’s new spouse’s income, and contribution to a child’s academic preparation camp.

The court held that the prior order’s two‑year review clause did not automatically entitle the responding parent to child support and that a material change in circumstances had not occurred prior to February 2013.

The court also held that a new spouse’s income is not relevant to child support calculations absent a claim of undue hardship and refused the disclosure request.

After one child began residing primarily with the responding parent in February 2013, guideline support and a shared‑custody set‑off analysis under s. 9 of the Child Support Guidelines was applied.

Child support of $411 per month was ordered from February 1, 2013 and the moving parent was required to contribute to the camp expense.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that granted retroactive child and spousal support and a charging order against the respondent father, who had repeatedly failed to provide financial disclosure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions that applied different legal principles and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, given the father's egregious conduct and failure to disclose.

Following a family law motion determining which parent the parties’ child would reside with for school purposes, the successful party sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court considered the principles governing family law costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and guidance from the Court of Appeal regarding the purposes of costs.

Although the successful party sought approximately $11,920 including costs from a prior case conference, the court held that conference costs should not be included because they had not been reserved to the motions judge.

Taking into account the circumstances and submissions of both parties, the court awarded reduced costs payable from trust funds held from the sale of the matrimonial home.

Separated parents brought competing motions seeking a determination of which parent the child should primarily reside with for purposes of school attendance.

The dispute arose in the context of a shared parenting arrangement on a rotating three‑day schedule and the impending commencement of kindergarten.

The court considered the recommendations of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and evaluated each parent’s proposed parenting plan, living arrangements, work schedules, health considerations, and the child’s stability.

Greater weight was given to the father’s ability to provide consistent school attendance, proximity to school, and flexible work hours.

The court ordered that the child primarily reside with the father during the school week, imposed restrictions on exposure to second‑hand smoke, and structured parenting time and exchanges between the parties.

Separated parents brought competing motions seeking a determination of which parent the child should primarily reside with for purposes of school attendance.

The dispute arose in the context of a shared parenting arrangement on a rotating three‑day schedule and the impending commencement of kindergarten.

The court considered the recommendations of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and evaluated each parent’s proposed parenting plan, living arrangements, work schedules, health considerations, and the child’s stability.

Greater weight was given to the father’s ability to provide consistent school attendance, proximity to school, and flexible work hours.

The court ordered that the child primarily reside with the father during the school week, imposed restrictions on exposure to second‑hand smoke, and structured parenting time and exchanges between the parties.

Following a lengthy family law trial, the successful party sought over $234,000 in costs.

The court applied Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules and considered settlement offers, trial success, litigation conduct, and the reasonableness of the bill of costs.

Although the successful party beat her offer to settle and was entitled to substantial recovery, the court reduced the claimed amount, including reducing junior counsel trial time by 50% for fairness.

The court ultimately fixed costs at $185,000 all-inclusive and ordered that the award be enforced through the Family Responsibility Office as a lump sum spousal support order due to the opposing party’s history of non‑compliance with court orders.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a prior final order seeking guideline child support from the mother based on an alleged material change in circumstances and a significant increase in the mother's income.

The court found no material change in the parenting arrangement since the 2002 order, concluding the children continued to spend approximately equal time with each parent.

The father's request for child support was therefore dismissed, and the mother's counterclaim for retroactive child support during a temporary period of reduced access was also dismissed for lack of pleadings and absence of a material change.

However, the court allowed the mother's claim in part for arrears of section 7 extraordinary expenses under the Federal Child Support Guidelines, ordering the father to pay his proportionate share for certain necessary and reasonable expenses dating back to the original order.

In a family law motion concerning parenting issues, the applicant sought a s. 30 assessment under the Children’s Law Reform Act and an order permitting questioning of the respondent.

The court approved the assessment and apportioned its anticipated cost of $6,000 according to the parties’ relative incomes, requiring the applicant to pay 80% and the respondent 20%, with any excess payable by the applicant.

The motion for questioning was dismissed because the statutory criteria under the Family Law Rules were not met and the proposed questioning would not advance the determination of the children’s best interests.

The court found the respondent to be the successful party and awarded substantial costs against the applicant after considering settlement offers and litigation conduct.

The moving party father sought leave to appeal an interim order that changed sole custody to joint custody with week-about access, and ordered him to pay child support.

He argued the motion judge erred by finding a material change in circumstances and by deciding child support after presiding over a brief settlement conference.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the disproving of the father's earlier allegations regarding the mother's mental health and flight risk constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court also found no breach of the Family Law Rules regarding the settlement conference, as the motion judge relied solely on the evidentiary record.

The request for a stay pending appeal was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to change a consent order for spousal support.

He argued that his son moving into his residence and his deteriorating financial position constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the child's move was reasonably foreseeable, the appellant's income had actually increased, and he was saving on child support.

The court also declined to admit fresh evidence and denied leave to appeal the costs order.

The appellant mother appealed an order varying custody and access of her two sons.

Before the appeal was heard, the parties entered into minutes of settlement to resolve the appeal, which included abandoning the appeal.

The appellant sought to set aside the minutes, alleging they were based on misleading information from the respondent father.

The Court of Appeal held it was not the proper forum to determine the validity of the minutes of settlement.

Noting that all parties agreed a change in circumstances warranted a variation hearing, the Court dismissed the appeal, leaving the appellant to challenge the minutes and seek a variation in the Superior Court with the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The appellant appealed a final order awarding the respondent retrospective and prospective child and spousal support, as well as costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed most grounds of appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decisions not to impute income to the respondent, to order support retroactive to May 2005, and to award $5,000 in child support arrears.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred by failing to provide reasons for awarding $2,000 monthly in spousal support for periods when the respondent was earning income.

The Court varied the spousal support to $1,700 monthly for the period the respondent earned income, upheld the $2,000 monthly award for the period she was unemployed, and reduced the costs award from $8,000 to $7,000.

The father brought a motion to stay an interim order that allowed the mother to relocate with their two children to Sweden pending a trial scheduled for December.

The court considered the tests for both a stay and leave to appeal, emphasizing that the best interests of the children and continuity of care were paramount.

Finding no grave prejudice or irreparable harm to the father, and noting the assessor's recommendation that the children remain in the mother's primary care, the court dismissed the motion for a stay and awarded costs to the mother.