William R. Clayton

The parties separated after a 13-year marriage.

The court resolved outstanding issues regarding Christmas parenting time, income determination, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court imputed significant corporate pre-tax income and personal benefits to the applicant father, setting his 2023 income at $392,054.

The respondent mother was awarded compensatory spousal support, retroactive child and spousal support, and an equalization payment, with offsets applied for the applicant's post-separation overpayments on joint debts.

The appellant appealed a trial order concerning parenting time, decision-making authority, and child support arrears, and sought leave to appeal a costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding it repetitive of trial evidence and not meeting the Palmer test.

The Court upheld the trial judge's decisions on equal parenting time (2-2-3 schedule), parallel decision-making (even though parties sought sole authority), and the finding that the appellant waived entitlement to retroactive child support.

Leave to appeal the costs award was denied, as the trial judge's discretion was found to be properly exercised based on the appellant's litigation conduct.

The applicant father sought to change existing parenting orders, requesting sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, a 120-day no-contact period for the mother, and a police enforcement order, alleging the mother was alienating the children.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking to suspend or supervise the father's parenting time, citing the children's resistance due to the father's alleged behavior.

The Children's Lawyer did not support either drastic request, suggesting clinical intervention.

The court dismissed both motions, finding insufficient evidence to support a drastic change in parenting arrangements on an interim basis, and ordered existing parenting orders to continue with attempts at contact, emphasizing the need for clinical intervention and judicial oversight.

The applicant father brought a contempt motion against the respondent mother, alleging she failed to comply with court orders regarding parenting time and telephone contact with their two children.

The court reviewed the history of parenting time issues, including incidents where the children did not transition to the father's care and conflicting accounts of the mother's efforts to facilitate contact.

Applying the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for contempt, the court found that while the children were not in the father's care on certain dates, the father failed to prove the mother intentionally breached the orders, except for one instance due to a family emergency, for which no contempt finding was warranted.

The court also found ambiguity in some order provisions regarding telephone calls and parenting time exchanges.

The father's contempt motion was dismissed, with the court emphasizing that contempt is a tool of last resort, especially in family law, and that the best interests of the children are paramount.

The respondent brought a Rule 14B motion seeking reconsideration of a spousal support order, specifically challenging the finding that he would be eligible for a full pension in 2025, alleging a mistake.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought costs.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding no mistake in the original order that would warrant reconsideration under Rule 25(19), stating any perceived error would require an appeal.

The court then proceeded to determine the costs for both the dismissed 14B motion and the underlying application (trial), assessing success based on the parties' positions and settlement offers, ultimately awarding the applicant partial indemnity costs for both.

This seven-day trial addressed spousal support, including entitlement, quantum, retroactivity, lump sum, and duration, following a 24-year marriage.

The court found the applicant entitled to compensatory support due to career sacrifices and her primary caregiver role.

It determined the income for both parties, awarded retroactive support from June 1, 2020, and ongoing monthly support of $1,900.

However, the request for a lump sum future support award was denied due to the unpredictable future means and needs of the parties.

Indefinite support was deemed appropriate given the long duration of the marriage.

The parties sought to vary a 2016 final order regarding parenting time and child support for their child.

The respondent initiated a motion to change parenting time, and the applicant sought to vary child support and exchange methods.

The court assessed the child's best interests, including views and preferences from a Voice of the Child Report, and the parents' credibility and willingness to cooperate.

The court varied the parenting schedule to a two-week rotating schedule, adjusting exchange methods, and imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes, ordering retroactive and ongoing support.

This is a costs endorsement following a ten-day family law trial.

The Applicant sought full recovery of legal fees, arguing success on dominant issues (decision-making, parenting time, child support, child's name) and the Respondent's unreasonable conduct, including false allegations.

The Respondent argued for no costs or limited costs, disputing the Applicant's success and her own conduct.

The court found the Applicant was the successful party on the dominant issues and that the Respondent's unreasonable behavior, coupled with the Applicant's offer to settle, justified an award of costs at the higher end of the substantial indemnity scale.

The Respondent was ordered to pay the Applicant $90,000 in costs.

The father brought a motion to change to enforce parenting time and a subsequent motion for interim primary care, which was dismissed.

He later withdrew his motion to change.

The court awarded the mother $22,500 in costs for the dismissed interim motion, finding she was the successful party.

However, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs for the withdrawn motion to change, finding the father acted reasonably in bringing it to enforce existing parenting orders after reconciliation counselling failed.

The trial addressed highly contentious issues of decision-making responsibility, parenting time, child support, and the child's surname.

The court found the mother had engaged in alienating behaviour, including false allegations of abuse and flight risk.

The court ordered joint parallel decision-making, with specific areas of final authority for each parent, and an equal 2-2-3 rotating parenting time schedule.

Child support arrears were dismissed, and the child's surname was changed to a hyphenated form including the father's surname, and the father was added to the birth registration.

The applicant father brought a motion for an interim parenting order to remove the children from the respondent mother's primary care, alleging parental alienation.

The father sought sole decision-making responsibility and enrollment in a therapeutic program to repair his relationship with the children.

The mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the motion, citing the children's strong wishes not to have contact with the father.

The court found that the issue of alienation was a triable issue and that a custody reversal was not in the children's best interests at this stage.

The motion was dismissed, the trial was expedited, and an order was made for the children to commence written email communication with the father with the assistance of their counsellor.

The parties separated after a brief marriage and sought orders regarding parenting, child support, and spousal support for their six-year-old child.

The mother withdrew her initial request to relocate to Germany.

The court ordered joint decision-making responsibility, with the mother having final decision-making authority subject to certain limitations, and granted the mother primary residence with the father having parenting time on alternate weekends and one overnight per week.

The father was ordered to pay $605 per month in child support and $150 per month in indefinite spousal support, subject to review.

The father's claim for retroactive reimbursement of spousal support was dismissed, though a minor credit for child support overpayment was granted.

The applicant father and respondent mother, who separated in 2014, both sought sole decision-making responsibility for their two children.

The parties had a history of high conflict and inability to co-parent effectively, despite a 2016 separation agreement providing for joint decision-making.

The court found that neither sole nor joint decision-making was appropriate, instead ordering divided decision-making: the father was granted final authority over education, dental, and extra-curricular activities, while the mother was granted final authority over medical decisions and school supports.

The existing shared parenting schedule was maintained with minor modifications.

The court also ordered that no child support be payable by either party under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines, and dismissed the mother's claim for retroactive child support.

Following a family law trial regarding child support, vehicle ownership, and a restraining order, the court addressed costs.

The court found that the trial was unnecessarily long and financially disastrous for both parties, given their modest financial circumstances and the proximity of their settlement offers.

Success on the child support issue was divided, but the applicant was entirely successful in dismissing the respondent's claims regarding the vehicle and restraining order.

The court awarded the applicant $25,000 in costs for those specific issues.

The parties, who were never married, resolved their parenting issues prior to trial, agreeing to shared parenting.

The remaining issues at trial were child support, ownership of a vehicle, and the respondent's request for a restraining order.

The court dismissed the vehicle claim for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed the request for a restraining order due to insufficient evidence of ongoing harassment or fear for safety.

On child support, the court found the applicant intentionally underemployed in his seasonal concrete business and imputed his income at $55,000.

Set-off child support was ordered based on the parties' respective incomes.

During final submissions in a family law trial, the respondent brought a motion to amend her answer to seek a higher imputed income for child support based on the applicant's undisclosed commission income.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent had substantial financial information months prior to trial but failed to seek an amendment in a timely manner.

Granting the amendment at this late stage would cause obvious disadvantage to the applicant that could not be compensated by costs or an adjournment.

The mother appealed trial orders granting the father sole custody and supervised access, and requiring her to undergo a psychiatric assessment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on the children's best interests and the jurisdiction to order the assessment.

The Court admitted a late psychiatric report as fresh evidence but gave it little weight due to its timing and lack of proper context, noting the mother's history of non-compliance with court orders.

This motion concerned the sale of five jointly owned farm properties following a marital breakdown.

The applicant sought an order for sale, while the respondents argued that section 11 of the Family Law Act prohibited such a sale for an operating farm.

The court determined that section 11 of the Family Law Act applies to jointly owned farms and that the "home farm" was indispensable to the operation and should not be sold.

However, the court found that the other jointly owned properties could be sold without seriously impairing the farm's operation, and that reasonable alternative methods existed to satisfy any equalization award.

This decision details the findings from the first portion of a bifurcated trial in divorce proceedings, primarily addressing the valuation of farm properties and farm equipment.

The court also considered the applicant's motion for partition and sale of jointly owned properties.

The judgment provides detailed analysis of expert appraisal methodologies, including fair market value, depreciation, comparable sales, and the influence of factors like drainage and solar panels on property values.

The court made specific findings on the values of seven farm properties and various pieces of equipment as of the marriage, separation, and trial dates.

The decision on the motion for partition and sale was reserved, pending further submissions from the parties regarding the impact of a recent case.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion for retroactive child support payments against her deceased ex-husband's estate.

The original 1978 Decree Nisi did not state that the child support obligation would bind the estate.

The motion judge ruled that under s. 17 of the Divorce Act, an application to claim or vary a support order against a decedent's estate cannot be brought if the original order is silent on binding the estate.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming that a support obligation under divorce legislation ends upon the payor's death unless specifically agreed otherwise, and that the Divorce Act lacks a provision similar to the Family Law Act that binds an estate.