William R. Clayton

In a family law motion, the applicant sought findings of contempt relating to alleged breaches of prior court orders concerning property retrieval, vehicle maintenance obligations, and parenting exchange arrangements.

The court found the respondent in contempt for deliberately withholding certain listed household items contrary to a prior order requiring their surrender, but declined to find contempt regarding alleged failure to service a vehicle because the order was ambiguous and primarily required payment of operating expenses.

The court imposed a reduced monetary fine and directed the parties to arrange completion of the property transfer.

Requests to vary parenting transfer arrangements and for reimbursement of vehicle maintenance costs were dismissed.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, the court determined interim parenting and support issues.

The court declined to award 'custody' to either parent, instead ordering a detailed shared parenting schedule to minimize conflict and maintain stability for the children.

The court imputed an income of $364,188 to the respondent business owner and ordered him to pay $4,454 monthly in child support and $7,575 monthly in spousal support.

Requests for funding to repair the matrimonial home and for its immediate sale were denied or adjourned.

In an uncontested family trial after the respondent's answer was struck for repeated disclosure breaches, the court granted a divorce, sole custody, supervised access at the applicant's discretion, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and contents.

The court found the respondent's non-disclosure and conduct egregious, and accepted evidence of untreated substance abuse as relevant to parenting and access.

Final determinations on equalization, child support, spousal support, and some property issues were adjourned because the evidentiary record remained incomplete, but interim child and spousal support were ordered based on the existing financial record.

The respondent's interest in the matrimonial home was ordered as interim security for support, and the applicant received full indemnity costs.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 1996 child support order, seeking retroactive child support, ongoing support for an adult child in full-time studies, and contribution to section 7 expenses.

The respondent had failed to provide income disclosure for several years and had received a grievance settlement after his employment was terminated.

The court ordered ongoing child support, fixed arrears at $12,500.40 retroactive to 2006 (including the grievance settlement in his income), ordered contribution to section 7 expenses, and required the respondent to maintain life insurance.

The applicant was awarded $10,000 in costs due to the respondent's failure to make timely financial disclosure.

Following a six-day family law trial addressing custody, child support, spousal support, and property issues, the court determined costs after receiving written submissions from both parties.

Each side claimed to be the successful party and sought significant costs.

The court reviewed the divided success on issues including joint custody with primary residence to the respondent, denial of spousal support, partial success on child support claims, and property-related relief.

Applying the principles under the Family Law Rules and the Courts of Justice Act, the court concluded that success was mixed and that the conduct of both parties contributed to the litigation.

In the circumstances, the fair and reasonable result was for each party to bear their own costs.

Following a second trial in a bifurcated family law proceeding concerning equalization, spousal support, and child support, the court determined costs.

The applicant was largely successful at trial on equalization and spousal support but unsuccessful on certain issues including child support and some property deductions.

The court rejected arguments that offers to settle triggered automatic cost consequences under the Family Law Rules due to deficiencies in the offers.

Applying r. 24 and considering the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct and the issues pursued unsuccessfully, the court awarded partial indemnity costs significantly below the full recovery sought.

Following a family law trial involving spousal support, retroactive support, and property equalization, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The successful party sought costs exceeding $99,000 relying on settlement offers and Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court held that the requirements of Rule 18(14) were not met because earlier offers had been withdrawn and the final offer was not clearly more favourable than the judgment regarding property.

However, the offers remained relevant under Rule 18(16) and the court also considered the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct, disclosure delays, and the complexity of income and valuation issues.

Balancing these factors, the court awarded $85,000 in costs plus disbursements and HST.

A family law dispute involving custody, child support, spousal support, and property issues following the breakdown of a short cohabiting relationship.

The court determined that the parties should have joint custody of the child born of their relationship, with primary residence with the mother and defined parenting time for the father.

The court found the father had stood in the place of a parent to two of the mother’s other children and ordered limited child support for them for a fixed period.

The mother was denied spousal support due to the short relationship and her voluntary unemployment, with income imputed to her.

The court declined to order the sale of the jointly owned home under the Partition Act and allowed the mother an opportunity to purchase the father’s 5% interest.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support.

The respondent had lost his employment and started unsuccessful business ventures, including purchasing an expensive motor home.

The court found the respondent intentionally under-employed and imputed an income of $90,000 based on his earning capacity.

The court also imputed income to the applicant based on full-time employment.

Interim child support of $1,293 per month and spousal support of $500 per month were ordered, with the respondent's equity in the matrimonial home standing as security.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal portions of an earlier order concerning security for child support and related procedural matters involving a foreign support order.

The court considered whether failure to register a German support order under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002 constituted a jurisdictional defect invalidating the earlier order.

The court held that any deficiencies in complying with the statutory procedure were procedural irregularities capable of being cured nunc pro tunc and not jurisdictional prerequisites.

The motion was characterized as a collateral attack on an earlier order that had not been appealed, and the court found no basis to interfere with the discretion exercised by the earlier judge.

Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 20-year marriage.

Following a prior trial that set aside their separation agreement, this trial determined equalization and spousal support.

The court dismissed both parties' claims for date of marriage deductions due to lack of evidence.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $68,260.

The court also awarded the applicant retroactive spousal support due to the respondent's conduct and her economic hardship, fixing ongoing interim arrears payments at $750 per month.

In a custody dispute following separation, both parents sought sole custody of two children, while the mother alternatively sought joint custody and equal time based on an Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) report recommending shared parenting.

The court assessed the best interests of the children under s. 16 of the Divorce Act and considered the significant caregiving role of the paternal grandmother, the parents’ inability to communicate effectively, and the reliability of the OCL report.

The court found the report carried limited weight due to methodological concerns, including joint interviews of the children and failure to interview key collateral contacts.

Given the long-standing status quo in which the children resided primarily with the father and paternal grandmother, and the instability that a major change would cause, the court concluded that sole custody with the father best served the children’s interests.

The mother was granted liberal and structured access and child support obligations were suspended due to her financial circumstances.

Following trial reasons dealing with child support, spousal support, and division of the children’s RESPs, the court addressed costs where the parties were unable to agree.

The applicant sought recovery of legal fees and disbursements after filing a bill of costs exceeding $46,000.

The respondent accepted most of the time claimed but argued for a reduction based on partial indemnity and divided success, particularly relating to an unsuccessful retroactive section 7 expense claim.

Applying Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules and considering the parties’ offers to settle, the court reduced the fees and certain disbursements.

Costs were fixed at $32,789.43 inclusive of HST and disbursements and were ordered to constitute a support order enforceable under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the court considered competing motions regarding temporary care and custody of a young child pending determination of the protection application.

The evidence consisted largely of conflicting affidavit evidence concerning allegations of domestic violence between the parents and related criminal proceedings.

Applying s. 51 of the Act, the court found reasonable grounds to believe the child faced a probable risk of harm if protective conditions were not imposed.

The court determined the child could be adequately protected by remaining in the mother’s care under the supervision of the Children’s Aid Society.

A structured access schedule for the father, including exchanges through the Society’s access exchange program, was ordered.

Following competing family law motions, the court requested submissions on costs.

The applicant argued that she had been more successful and sought costs pursuant to Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The respondent submitted that the result reflected mixed success and that no costs order should be made.

The court found that both parties achieved partial success on the issues, including preservation orders and limited access to funds, and that neither party could be said to have prevailed overall.

Accordingly, the court declined to award costs.

The responding party brought a motion seeking temporary child support, contribution to special expenses under s. 7 of the Ontario Child Support Guidelines, and temporary spousal support.

The court considered whether income should be imputed to the payor under s. 19(1) of the Guidelines given evidence of assets, inconsistent financial disclosure, and claimed business downturn.

The court declined to impute the higher income sought but imputed income of $72,000 based on the payor’s budget, asset holdings, and limited financial disclosure.

Temporary child support, spousal support, and contribution to special expenses were ordered retroactive to October 1, 2012.

In a family law proceeding following separation, both parties brought motions regarding access to and preservation of joint investment assets pending resolution of property and support issues.

The applicant sought exclusive monthly withdrawals from a joint investment account and preservation of the respondent’s assets, while the respondent sought division of the account or equal access to it.

The court declined to divide the account at this stage but ordered interim monthly withdrawals from the joint account of $6,500 to the applicant and $3,000 to the respondent.

The respondent was also permitted to withdraw $200,000 to address outstanding debts, credited against his eventual share.

A preservation order was granted over the parties’ assets to maintain the financial status quo pending further proceedings.

The moving party father brought a motion to change child support after one of the children moved in with him.

The responding party mother sought a review of spousal support, retroactive and prospective section 7 expenses for their daughter's competitive dance, and distribution of RESP funds.

The court found the father had manipulated his corporate income and imputed additional pre-tax corporate profits to him for support purposes.

Spousal support was ordered to continue indefinitely at $4,000 per month, though the mother was required to make efforts to become self-sufficient.

The mother's claim for retroactive section 7 expenses was dismissed due to lack of notice, but prospective expenses were ordered.

The RESP capital was distributed between the parties.

Two applications were brought regarding the estate of the deceased.

One beneficiary sought to remove all three current executors and appoint an independent trustee, citing irreconcilable differences and hostility.

Two of the executors brought a cross-application to remove the third executor, who was operating the estate's main asset (a family farm) and had an interest in purchasing it.

The court found that the third executor had a conflict of interest and was primarily responsible for creating a climate of distrust that impeded the estate's administration.

The court removed the third executor and allowed the other two to continue as sole executors, dismissing the application to remove all three.

The applicant and the respondent separated in 2006.

The respondent died in 2010 before the trial concluded.

The applicant converted her family law claims into a dependant's relief claim under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The estate was insolvent, but the respondent had a $1 million life insurance policy naming his daughters as beneficiaries.

The court found the applicant was a dependant entitled to adequate provision and awarded her a lump sum of $430,000 from the life insurance proceeds, after accounting for equalization, child support, and occupation rent.

The balance of the policy proceeds was ordered to be paid to the daughters.