William R. Clayton

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.

In a high-conflict parenting dispute, the applicant father brought a motion to enforce his parenting time after the 12-year-old children refused to see him.

The respondent mother sought to stay the motion and proceed with oral questioning.

The court found it had jurisdiction under the amended Divorce Act to order reconciliation counselling as an incident of a parenting order.

The court ordered the parties and children to engage in reconciliation counselling to re-establish the relationship between the children and the applicant, dismissing the respondent's request for further litigation at this stage.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 1978 divorce order to claim retroactive child support and post-secondary expenses from the estate of her deceased ex-husband, 41 years after the original order.

The respondent estate trustee brought a motion to dismiss the claim on a question of law.

The court held that under the Divorce Act, a support obligation ends upon the payor's death unless the order explicitly provides that it binds the estate.

Because the original order contained no such provision, it died with the payor and could not be retroactively varied post-death.

The applicant's motion to change was dismissed.

The moving party sought to quash her former spouse's appeal due to his ongoing and wilful breach of court orders requiring him to pay spousal support and arrears.

The Court of Appeal found the appellant's non-compliance to be deliberate, relentless, and indefensible.

The court exercised its discretion to quash the appeal, awarded full indemnity costs to the moving party, and ordered that the appellant be precluded from bringing any further proceeding before the court until he complies with all support obligations.

The respondent (moving party) brought a motion to adjourn the appellant's appeal, partially lift an automatic stay for an equalization payment, and seek security for costs and an extension of time to file her factum.

The appellant had failed to comply with spousal support orders and had taken actions to potentially frustrate enforcement of the equalization payment.

The court found the appellant's non-compliance with support orders flagrant and ordered the appeal stayed until arrears were paid.

It also partially lifted the stay on the equalization payment for the undisputed amount.

The respondent husband sought full indemnity costs of nearly $100,000 following a family law trial regarding spousal support and equalization.

The applicant wife argued for a lower amount, noting her positions were not patently unreasonable and she recovered an order more valuable than the respondent's offer to settle.

The court agreed that costs should be payable on a partial indemnity basis, finding the applicant's positions arguable and her conduct reasonable.

Costs were fixed at $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's answer due to his failure to comply with an interim spousal support order and an interim costs order.

The respondent argued he was financially unable to comply, citing his retirement and depleted investments.

The court found the respondent's non-compliance to be willful, deliberate, and flagrant, noting his ability to pay for a luxury vehicle lease buyout while claiming poverty.

The court ordered the respondent's answer struck, except for the claim for divorce, but granted a time-limited stay to allow him a final opportunity to pay the full arrears.

The moving party sought to terminate his spousal support obligation after losing his employment.

The responding party opposed, arguing he should use his capital to continue payments.

The court found the loss of employment constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court suspended the spousal support obligation, concluding it was unfair to require the moving party to deplete his capital to fund support when both parties had comparable financial positions and capital assets.

The applicant sought costs following a successful interim spousal support motion.

The court considered the applicant's offers to settle, which included costs provisions and spousal support for periods not covered by the order.

The court found that these offers did not meet the strict conditions of Rule 18(14) for full indemnity due to the inclusion of costs and extraneous support periods.

However, the offers were considered under Rule 18(16).

Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality under Rule 24(12), the court awarded the applicant $11,500 in costs, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, rejecting the respondent's argument that the applicant's conduct was unreasonable.

The applicant sought summary judgment for custody and access.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant, finding both parents contributed to a high-conflict environment detrimental to the children.

The decision emphasized the need for professional assessments for the son, James, and therapy for both parents to address anger, hostility, and parenting skills.

Specific orders were made regarding communication, disclosure, and a structured access schedule, with a focus on developing individual relationships with the father, free from conflict.

Following a 30-day trial regarding custody, access, and support, the applicant father sought costs capped at $30,000 pursuant to a partial settlement agreement.

The court found the costs request premature because the remaining outstanding issues, specifically the mother's access review pending a psychiatric assessment, had not been fully determined.

The determination of costs liability was deferred until the completion of the access review.

The parties separated after a high-conflict marriage.

The applicant father sought sole custody of their two children, while the respondent mother sought custody and unsupervised access.

The court found that the mother had exhibited concerning behaviour and communications suggesting potential mental health issues, and had failed to comply with previous court orders regarding access.

The court awarded sole custody to the father, ordered the mother's access to remain supervised, and directed the mother to undergo a psychiatric assessment.

The father was ordered to pay time-limited spousal support, and the mother was ordered to pay child support.

In this family law trial, Patricia Zacher sought to establish beneficial ownership of a property (14 Steeplechase) legally held by her adult dependent daughter, Nichola Zacher, and to divide Robert Zacher's in-pay CN pension, as well as ongoing spousal support.

The court dismissed Patricia's claims, finding that the property was a gift to Nichola, and that further pension division or spousal support would constitute impermissible "double-dipping" given the prior equalization of net family property and Patricia's substantial assets.

Interim spousal support was ordered to end December 1, 2019.

The applicant sought an interim restraining order and supervised access exchanges due to the respondent's abusive communications, intimidating behavior, and suspected involvement in property damage.

The respondent opposed the restraining order and moved to strike portions of the applicant's affidavit.

The court granted the interim restraining order, largely dismissed the motion to strike, and ordered supervised access exchanges at a family support center or designated public locations, finding the applicant had reasonable grounds to fear for her psychological and physical safety and the child's safety.

In supplementary reasons following an appeal regarding property ownership, the Court of Appeal addressed outstanding financial issues between former spouses.

The court ordered the respondent to reimburse the appellant for mortgage and property tax payments she made on his half-interest in a jointly owned property, finding he would otherwise be unjustly enriched.

The court also awarded the appellant additional occupation rent for the post-trial period.

Given divided success on the main appeal issues, the court ordered the parties to bear their own costs for both the trial and the appeal.

In a divorce action, the maternal grandparents brought a motion to be added as parties to advance a claim for access, which was dismissed.

The court determined the costs of the dismissed motion.

Finding that the motion had no chance of success and the procedure pursued was inappropriate at a late stage, the court awarded the responding party full indemnity costs fixed at $7,000.

Appeal from trial judgment in matrimonial proceedings concerning ownership of property.

The trial judge found that the appellant's 50% interest in Knapton Farms Ltd. (a corporation holding farm property) and 100% interest in lot 8 (adjoining land) were beneficially owned by the respondent through resulting trust.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the trial judge correctly applied resulting trust principles to the Knapton shares but erred regarding lot 8.

The court held that the initial 1994 transfer of lot 8 to the parties as joint owners created a presumption of joint beneficial ownership under the Family Law Act, which the respondent failed to rebut.

However, the court upheld the resulting trust finding regarding the 1996 transfer of the respondent's half-interest to the appellant.

The court also corrected the valuation of farm real estate and addressed equalization, occupation rent, and pre-judgment interest issues.

The maternal grandparents sought leave to be added as parties to a high-conflict family law proceeding between the applicant father and respondent mother, intending to claim access to their grandchildren.

The applicant father opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the grandparents' presence would not assist in resolving the existing issues between the parents and that adding new parties and claims at this late stage would cause significant and undue delay, which was not in the children's best interests.

The court emphasized that adding parties is not intended for individuals to join existing litigation solely to advance their own claims.

Following a 23-day family law trial where the applicant was overwhelmingly successful, she sought substantial indemnity costs based on pre-trial offers to settle.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs because the offers were structured differently from the final award, making comparison difficult.

However, noting the respondent's unreasonable conduct in prolonging the trial, the court awarded the applicant $115,000 in costs, with 40% designated as support-related for enforcement purposes.

The applicant sought permission to add six witnesses to the trial list shortly before the scheduled family law trial, despite an order from the trial management conference restricting witnesses to those listed.

The proposed witnesses were intended to testify about the applicant's physical and emotional condition following separation.

The court refused permission, noting the lack of a reasonable explanation for the delay, the potential prejudice to the respondent, and the lack of detailed 'will say' statements, while leaving the ultimate evidentiary rulings to the trial judge.