Aaron Myer Franks

This appeal addressed whether pension payments divided at source for family law purposes can continue to a non-member spouse's estate after their death for the balance of the retired member spouse's life.

The motion judge had ruled this was precluded by the Pension Benefits Act (PBA).

The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that nothing in the PBA, Family Law Act (FLA), or the Family Law Matters Regulation (O. Reg. 287/11) prevents such an arrangement.

The court emphasized that the "Family Law Matters" sections of the PBA (ss. 67.1-67.9) and the Regulation govern these issues, not general pension provisions.

The appeal was allowed, clarifying that such continuation is permissible if provided for by agreement, court order, or arbitration award.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Kiteley J. dated December 10, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the corporate respondents in the fixed amount of $5,000, while no costs were awarded to the individual respondent as no costs outline was filed.

The applicant's motion for disclosure was dismissed, making the corporate respondents presumptively entitled to costs.

However, the court found that the corporate respondents behaved unreasonably by relying on an inadmissible affidavit and failing to respond to the court's directions regarding their conduct.

As a result, the court discounted their partial indemnity costs by 25% and ordered the applicant to pay $7,500 in costs.

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his motion to prevent his daughter from changing elementary schools to a Catholic school, and the associated costs order.

The respondent mother, who had sole decision-making authority, sought to enroll their daughter in the local Catholic school due to bullying at the current school and the academic superiority of the new school.

The motion judge found the mother was committed to raising the daughter in the Jewish faith and had secured exemptions from religious instruction at the Catholic school, thus finding no breach of the prior order for the daughter to be raised in the Jewish faith.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the motion judge's decision or costs award, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant, Paul Dowdall, appealed an order denying his motion to enforce minutes of settlement for child and spousal support.

The motion judge refused enforcement due to Mr. Dowdall's intentional and material non-disclosure of a significantly higher-paying job offer before accepting the respondent's settlement offer.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's discretionary decision, emphasizing the fundamental duty of full and honest financial disclosure in family law negotiations.

The court found that the non-disclosure deprived the respondent of the opportunity to make an informed decision and withdraw her offer, leading to an unfair result.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an interim order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the corporate respondents.

Following an appeal of a family law arbitration award where success was divided, both parties sought costs of the appeal.

The applicant sought $70,000 and the respondent sought $111,734.71.

The court reviewed the principles of costs under the Family Law Rules, including the impact of offers to settle and divided success.

Finding that neither party was predominantly successful and neither acted unreasonably or in bad faith, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs of the appeal.

The court also reduced the costs of the arbitration payable by the applicant to the respondent from $75,000 to $49,150 to reflect the appellate outcome.

The applicant brought a motion seeking production of a lawyer's file, arguing she had an explicit or implicit solicitor-client relationship with him, or alternatively, that the respondents waived privilege.

The lawyer had acted for the respondent and the corporate respondents during a period when the parties were allegedly involved in a joint family venture involving cryptocurrency.

The court found the applicant failed to establish a solicitor-client relationship, as the few documents she relied on were insufficient to show she was led to believe he was her lawyer.

The court also found no evidence that the respondents waived privilege.

Although the motion was dismissed, the court struck significant portions of the respondent's affidavit for relying on inadmissible hearsay in breach of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion for interim spousal support and disclosure of cryptocurrency holdings.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle and found the applicant beat her offer regarding spousal support and met her offer regarding native file format disclosure.

The applicant was awarded costs of $104,533 on a substantial recovery basis.

The corporate respondents were successful on a discrete issue regarding a server and were awarded costs of $12,600 on a partial indemnity basis, to be paid from the applicant's costs award.

The parties appealed an arbitrator's award regarding financial issues following their separation.

The central issues involved the calculation of the respondent's equalization payment, including the treatment of inherited properties and title to the matrimonial home, as well as the calculation of his income for spousal and child support purposes.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the arbitrator erred in allowing the respondent to claim sole ownership of the matrimonial home, applying the doctrines of issue estoppel and res judicata based on a prior consent award for its sale.

The court also corrected the arbitrator's calculation of the respondent's income for support purposes, but otherwise dismissed the appeals regarding the treatment of inherited property, spousal support duration, and prejudgment interest.

The moving party sought to quash an appeal brought by the responding party from a motion judge's dismissal of a request to reconsider a costs order.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge's order refusing to reconsider the costs disposition was interlocutory, as it did not finally dispose of any substantive right.

Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and the appeal was quashed with costs awarded to the moving party.

The applicant mother and respondent father both appealed an arbitration award concerning parenting and financial issues.

The mother appealed the arbitrator's decision requiring her to return with the children from Indiana to Ontario, arguing it failed to prioritize the children's best interests and the maximum contact principle.

The father appealed the arbitrator's decision granting the mother primary care and final decision-making authority upon their return to Ontario.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed both appeals regarding the parenting issues, finding the arbitrator made no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of mixed fact and law.

The court upheld the return to Ontario and the parenting arrangements, while reserving judgment on the financial issues.

The parties entered into a prenuptial agreement waiving spousal support and property rights.

After separation, the appellant husband sought equalization and spousal support, and requested the marriage contract be set aside under the Family Law Act.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the respondent wife, finding the request to set aside the contract was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period in the Limitations Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a request to set aside a marriage contract is a proceeding for a declaration where no consequential relief is sought, and is therefore not subject to a limitation period under s. 16(1)(a) of the Limitations Act.

The underlying claims for equalization and support remain subject to their respective limitation periods.

The applicant mother appealed an arbitration award concerning parenting and financial matters, specifically moving to stay the parenting provisions requiring the children's return to Ontario by May 31, 2020, and to admit fresh evidence.

The respondent father resisted the motion and sought to admit his own fresh evidence.

The court granted a stay of the parenting provisions until the completion of the appeal, finding a serious issue, irreparable harm to the children's best interests due to the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on specialized treatment and transition plans, and a balance of convenience favouring the stay.

The court also admitted relevant fresh evidence from both parties, adopting a flexible approach due to the children's best interests and risk of harm.

This endorsement addresses a procedural case conference concerning ongoing litigation between separated spouses.

The applicant, Mr. Hrvoic, initiated an application for Ms. Hrvoic to sell her shares in a family business.

Following Mr. Hrvoic's termination of Ms. Hrvoic's employment, Ms. Hrvoic "borrowed" $600,000 from a line of credit.

Dow J. subsequently ordered Ms. Hrvoic to repay $500,000 of this amount.

Ms. Hrvoic now seeks leave to appeal this term and an urgent stay pending appeal.

The court noted the parties' contentious approach and set a schedule for the motion for a stay pending appeal, declining to grant an interim stay.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order reducing spousal support.

The appellant argued that the trial judge was premature in accepting the respondent's retirement and that there was no basis for reducing support if appropriate income was imputed to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the trial judge heard the evidence, reached conclusions available on the evidence, and properly applied the applicable legal principles under the Divorce Act.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed from a trial judge's orders relating to the division of net family property and spousal support in a family law matter.

The principal issues were: (1) whether the trial judge erred in discounting a $5,000,000 promissory note by 90% for equalization purposes, where the note was signed on behalf of the appellant's holding company in favour of his parents for a condominium project loan; and (2) whether the trial judge erred in awarding indefinite spousal support.

The Court of Appeal upheld both decisions, finding that the trial judge properly applied the law regarding contingent liabilities and exercised reasonable discretion in awarding indefinite spousal support based on the respondent's health issues and the compensatory nature of support.

The applicant wife sought extensive financial disclosure and interim security for spousal support, while the respondent husband also sought disclosure and resisted some of the wife's requests, particularly concerning disputed separation dates and solicitor-client privilege.

The court made conditional orders for disclosure, requiring third-party real estate appraisals over MPAC assessments, and addressed the timing of tracing reports.

On privilege, the court found the wife had waived privilege over a former lawyer's file and an email chain by placing her state of mind and the communication in issue, but denied her request for the husband's legal consultation dates as irrelevant.

For interim security, the court ordered the husband to designate the wife as a revocable beneficiary of $500,000 in life insurance, with an option for the wife to increase it to $1 million by paying additional premiums.

The husband was deemed more successful, and the wife was ordered to pay him $12,500 in costs.

In this matrimonial appeal, the husband challenged a motion judge's order allowing the wife to amend her notice of motion to request a set-off of costs and interest owed by the wife against accumulated spousal support and costs owed by the husband.

The motion judge set off $331,533.54 against $479,130.91, resulting in a net amount of $147,597.37 owing from the husband to the wife.

The husband argued that set-off was not available in law and usurped the jurisdiction of the Family Responsibility Office.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the amendment was appropriately allowed under the Family Law Rules and that set-off was available under section 111 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support and a family law restraining order against the respondent father.

The respondent had deliberately failed to provide court-ordered financial disclosure for four years, complicating the assessment of his income.

The court preferred the applicant's expert's preliminary assessment of the respondent's income at $890,000 for 2018, rejecting the respondent's lower self-reported figures.

Consequently, the court ordered temporary monthly table child support of $13,502 and spousal support of $12,800 (low range of SSAG), both retroactive to January 1, 2018.

The parties' proportionate shares for section 7 expenses were set at 75% for the respondent and 25% for the applicant.

A family law restraining order was also issued against the respondent, mirroring prior probation terms, due to the applicant's legitimate fear for her safety, supported by the respondent's history of violence and subsequent breaches of orders involving a second spouse.