Alice Parama

The applicant wife and respondent husband separated after a 29-year marriage.

The trial addressed the equalization of net family properties, numerous exclusion claims primarily by the husband, unequal division, income determination, and spousal support.

The court found the husband's evidence regarding his financial affairs and exclusion claims to be largely unreliable, noting his failure to provide adequate disclosure and his history of non-compliance with court orders.

The court allowed some of the husband's exclusion claims where supported by documentary evidence but denied others due to commingling and lack of tracing.

The wife's claim for an unequal division of net family properties was dismissed.

The court imputed an annual income of $232,500 to the husband due to his inadequate disclosure and ordered him to pay $5,500 per month in spousal support, along with an equalization payment of $353,752.

The applicant father sought a week-on/week-off parenting schedule and permission to travel to Mexico for a week with the parties' 20-month-old child.

The father's freelance work schedule allowed him to care for the child on alternate weeks.

The mother opposed the schedule, arguing the child was too young to be separated from her for a full week.

The court applied the AFCC Parenting Guidelines, finding that a toddler should not be separated from either parent for more than two to three days.

The court dismissed the father's requests, establishing a schedule that prevented extended separations while maximizing the father's parenting time during his available week.

Following a nine-week high-conflict parenting trial where the applicant father was wholly successful and the respondent mother was found in contempt and to have acted in bad faith, the court determined costs.

The father beat multiple offers to settle.

The court awarded the father costs on a full recovery basis for the trial and contempt motion, and partial recovery for pre-trial steps, fixing the total costs at $677,610 inclusive of HST and disbursements, to be set off against spousal support and equalization.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's order transferring primary care of the parties' two children to the respondent father, which included an initial period of no contact for the mother and a staged increase in parenting time.

The trial judge's decision, made after a 39-day trial, found the mother had intentionally undermined parenting schedules and made false allegations of sexual abuse to terminate the children's relationship with the father.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's exercise of discretion and factual findings, emphasizing the deference owed to trial judges in parenting orders, especially when the decision has already been implemented.

The court found no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or her consideration of the Divorce Act regarding family violence, as the mother's allegations were not established.

The appellant (P.I.A.) sought a stay of a trial judge's order transferring primary care and decision-making responsibility of two children to the respondent (W.S.), pending appeal.

The motion judge applied the three-part test for a stay (serious question, irreparable harm, balance of convenience), with the overriding consideration being the children's best interests.

While a low threshold for serious question was met on one ground (admissibility of expert evidence), the court found no evidence of irreparable harm to the children and determined the balance of convenience favored maintaining the trial judge's order to restore the parenting relationship with the respondent.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant father sought a transfer of primary care and decision-making responsibility for the parties' two young children.

The respondent mother had engaged in a severe and prolonged campaign of parental alienation, including making multiple false allegations of physical and sexual abuse to the police and children's aid societies, and sabotaging court-ordered reunification therapy.

The court found that the mother's conduct caused significant emotional harm to the children and that she was incapable of supporting their relationship with the father.

The court transferred primary care and decision-making to the father, ordered a 90-day period of no contact for the mother (save for supervised therapeutic time), and found the mother in contempt of a previous access order.

The respondent wife brought a motion to dismiss the applicant husband's family law application, arguing that China was the more appropriate forum to determine their property and spousal support disputes.

The parties had married in China, obtained a joint divorce certificate there, and owned significant assets in China, though they also owned property and resided part-time in Ontario.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter due to a real and substantial connection, including the husband's claim for a constructive trust over an Ontario property.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding the wife failed to establish that China was a clearly more appropriate forum, particularly given the risk that the husband might be time-barred from pursuing property claims under Chinese law.