Alex Finlayson

This focused trial addressed the beneficial ownership of a condominium property for the purpose of calculating Net Family Property in a divorce proceeding.

The Applicant Husband argued the Respondent Wife was the sole beneficial owner, while the Respondent Wife contended her mother (Roya Souzankari) was the sole beneficial owner via a purchase money resulting trust.

The court found that the mother held a 64% beneficial interest and the wife held a 36% beneficial interest, based on their respective financial contributions to the property's acquisition, including initial deposits and subsequent mortgage principal payments.

The court dismissed both parties' extreme positions and provided a methodology for valuing the wife's interest at the date of marriage and separation.

The father (A.N.) brought a long motion seeking to retrospectively vary a temporary order from November 21, 2022, which required him to pay $5,134.24 per month for matrimonial home expenses and the mother's car payments, to $1,000.00 per month, citing health reasons and inability to work.

The mother (D.N.) opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding he failed to satisfy the four-part test to vary a temporary order on an interim basis, specifically lacking "clean hands" a strong prima facie case, urgency, or hardship.

The court noted significant credibility issues with the father's claims of inability to pay and the mother's alleged hidden income, concluding these issues require a full trial.

The applicant mother brought a summary judgment motion seeking declarations against the respondent father and the Director of Land Titles.

The mother sought declarations that she and the father were spouses, that the Newmarket property was a matrimonial home, and that she was entitled to compensation from the Land Titles Assurance Fund due to a fraudulent mortgage taken by the father.

The court dismissed the claims for declaratory relief against the Director, finding it lacked jurisdiction to determine compensation from the Fund at first instance, as the statutory scheme designates the Director for such determinations, subject to appeal.

The court also found that the mother had not met the summary judgment test for the relationship issues due to conflicting evidence regarding a foreign divorce and separation agreement.

The issue regarding setting aside the TELB mortgage settled.

The parties separated after a short, traditional marriage.

The father assumed primary care of their young child and engaged in a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, including restricting the mother's parenting time, making unfounded allegations about her mental health, and psychologically abusing the child by involving him in the litigation.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary parenting time, spousal support, and equalization.

The court found the father to be an 'unfriendly parent' who engaged in family violence and could not be trusted with decision-making.

The court awarded the mother residual decision-making responsibility and ordered a transition to a shared parenting schedule, ultimately culminating in a 2-2-5 schedule.

The court also imputed income to the father, ordering him to pay retroactive and prospective child and spousal support, as well as an equalization payment of $124,542.43.

Following a motion where the court ordered a child returned to Ontario after the father's unauthorized relocation to New Brunswick, the kin caregiver sought costs against the father and the Children's Aid Society.

The court found the father's conduct unreasonable and the Society's failure to properly assess the relocation plan and file required evidence irresponsible.

The court ordered the father and the Society to each pay $5,000 in costs, and held them jointly and severally liable for $2,349.15 in travel costs incurred by the kin caregiver to retrieve the child.

The children's aid society brought a protection application regarding three children who had been exposed to emotional harm due to extreme high-conflict litigation between their parents.

The court had previously convened a hearing on its own motion due to concerns about the children's safety and the society's inaction.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm and could not be adequately protected by a supervision order, particularly given the mother's refusal to cooperate and the father's lack of contact.

The court ordered the children to be placed in the temporary care and custody of the society.

The respondent father sought directions regarding the conduct of the family law case after a children's aid society commenced a protection application.

The court noted that while the Child, Youth and Family Services Act stays proceedings under the Children's Law Reform Act, it may not stay proceedings under the Divorce Act.

However, to prevent parallel litigation, the court exercised its jurisdiction under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act to stay the parenting claims in the family law proceeding, directing that those issues be addressed in the child protection court.

The court clarified that financial claims in the family law proceeding were not stayed.

The applicant father brought a motion to resume his parenting time after it was suspended due to a series of unverified physical and sexual abuse allegations orchestrated by the respondent mother and her new partner.

The mother brought a cross-motion to suspend the father's parenting time and for a restraining order.

The court found a material change in circumstances, noting the mother's lack of insight, her partner's concerning criminal and mental health history, and the failure of child welfare agencies to adequately intervene.

The court dismissed the mother's cross-motion, ordered the resumption of the father's parenting time on a supervised basis, and directed the involvement of the children's aid society to support the family's reunification.

The mother sought $7,000 in partial recovery costs after successfully resisting the father's motion for reunification therapy and achieving substantial success on her request for life insurance.

The father argued no costs should be awarded or they should be limited to $1,500, citing divided success and the mother's unreasonable conduct.

The court found the mother was the successful party but discounted her costs due to findings of poor behaviour by both parties.

The father was ordered to pay $5,000 in costs to the mother.

This ruling addresses ongoing high-conflict family litigation, specifically concerning the mother's non-compliance with previous court orders and direct communication with the court, and the father's improper ex parte motion for a change in primary residence.

The court dismissed the father's ex parte motion but ordered an in-person hearing under section 81(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, to determine if grounds exist for a child protection hearing or for the children to be brought to a place of safety.

The Durham Children's Aid Society was directed to file an affidavit explaining its actions regarding the child protection concerns.

This decision addresses a long motion in a high-conflict family litigation case between a mother and father concerning parenting and support.

The mother withdrew her application and refused to participate in the father's motion, even attempting to call the police in court.

The court heard the father's unopposed motion, dismissing many of his requests due to lack of jurisdiction (e.g., child welfare-like orders, compelling a "Miglin Release") or insufficient evidence (e.g., sole decision-making, imputed income, life insurance).

The court ordered the continuation of the existing week-about parenting schedule, mandated both parents' participation in previously ordered custody/access and mental health assessments, and prohibited both parties from bringing any further motions without leave due to their history of abusive litigation conduct.

The court also cancelled a matrimonial home designation on the paternal grandfather's property.

No costs were awarded, as the judge found both parties contributed to the litigation's chaos.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary a temporary parenting order, seeking primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility for the parties' 4-year-old child, with supervised parenting time for the respondent mother.

The mother had repeatedly denied the father parenting time based on unsubstantiated allegations of physical and sexual abuse, and drugging, which were investigated and closed by police and child protection services.

The court found compelling circumstances to change the status quo prior to trial, noting the mother's failure to support the child's relationship with the father and the emotional harm caused by her conduct.

The court granted the father's motion, awarding him primary residence and sole decision-making, and ordered the mother to have supervised parenting time.

This decision addresses two motions: a request for costs by A.V. against the Durham Children's Aid Society due to procedural missteps regarding police records, and a motion by the children's maternal great grandparents for party status.

The court dismissed A.V.'s costs claim, finding that the Society had taken ameliorative steps and that a costs order would transfer public funds without further achieving the objectives of costs.

The court also dismissed the great grandparents' motion for party status, concluding they were not statutory parents and did not meet the discretionary test under Rule 7(5) of the Family Law Rules, citing concerns about delay, lack of a clear plan, and potential for increased family conflict.

This Status Review proceeding involved a motion by the Durham Children's Aid Society and the father (S.M.) to permit the father to relocate with his 3-year-old child (A.M.) from Ontario to New Brunswick.

The kin caregiver (C.C.) opposed the relocation and sought temporary care and custody of A.M. in Ontario.

The court found the father's unilateral departure from Ontario with the child improper and questioned his credibility, compliance with orders, and willingness to facilitate the child's relationship with the kin caregiver, especially in light of an outstanding criminal warrant for an alleged assault in A.M.'s presence.

The court also noted the Society's incomplete assessment and lack of a detailed interjurisdictional access plan.

Applying the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA) and relocation principles, the court dismissed the Society's and father's motions, ordering A.M. to remain in C.C.'s temporary care and custody in Ontario.

The respondent father brought a motion to compel his 15-year-old child to attend reunification therapy and sought a determination on the quantum of life insurance to secure child support.

The applicant mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) opposed the reunification therapy, citing the child's strong and consistent refusal and the potential for harm.

The court found both parents contributed to the family dysfunction, acknowledging the mother's inappropriate involvement of the child in parental conflict and the father's history of family violence.

The court dismissed the motion for reunification therapy, prioritizing the child's autonomy and well-being.

Regarding life insurance, the court ordered the father to maintain a policy of $165,950.00, securing child support and a portion of future post-secondary education costs, with annual reductions.

The child protection agency brought a motion within a status review proceeding to change the temporary placement of an Indigenous child from the father's care to the mother's care pending trial.

The mother supported the motion, citing her progress in substance abuse recovery, while the father opposed it, arguing the child had stability in his care and the mother's progress needed to be tested at trial.

The court applied a flexible approach to varying a supervision order and determined that the father had provided stability for over two years.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence regarding the mother's recovery and the child's best interests required a full trial.

This decision provides an update on an ongoing child protection application, detailing the progress of the Durham Children's Aid Society and respondent father A.V. in implementing previous court orders regarding the child J.'s care, schooling, and counselling.

It notes less positive developments with respondent parents D.F. and C.S., including a new child's removal and potential file transfer from another jurisdiction.

The court addressed an informal request by the maternal great grandparents for party status, directing them to bring a formal motion with evidence and legal submissions.

The decision also sets out a schedule for costs submissions from A.V. against the Society and adjourns the matter for further attendance.

The parties engaged in a highly conflicted 16-day trial regarding parenting issues for their two children.

The mother had previously obtained a sole custody order for the older child against her former partner using a falsified DNA test, a scheme in which the father was found to be complicit.

The court found both parties engaged in family violence, including coercive and controlling behaviour, but determined the mother was more likely to marginalize the father and withhold information.

The court awarded the father final decision-making responsibility for health and education, maintained the existing equal parenting schedule, granted a declaration of parentage for the younger child, and authorized hyphenated name changes for both children, subject to notifying the older child's biological father of the fraud.

The children's aid society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of three children, seeking to place them with their great grandparents.

The parents opposed the placement, raising concerns about violence, drug use, and criminal activity in the proposed home.

The court found the society's evidence regarding the proposed placement to be incomplete and lacking transparency.

The court dismissed the society's motion to place the children with the great grandparents and ordered that the children remain in the temporary care and custody of the society.

The court also ruled that the society does not require a court order to use police occurrence reports already provided to it pursuant to the duty to report.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking to amend her application to claim a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against the former matrimonial home and to add the husband's sister as a respondent.

The wife alleged two fraudulent conveyances: first, the husband secretly purchased the matrimonial home through a corporation he owned, and second, he transferred the property from the corporation to his sister without consideration.

The court granted the CPL and added the sister as a party, finding a high probability of the wife succeeding on her claims for an unequal division of net family property and support.

The court emphasized the husband's surreptitious conduct, non-disclosure, and lack of assets as factors favoring the CPL, and ordered the husband to pay costs.