Andreus R. Snelius

This decision addresses a motion to transfer an appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario to the Divisional Court.

The underlying appeal concerns a final order made solely under the Family Law Act by a Family Court judge, which dismissed a motion to change a separation agreement.

The Court of Appeal determined that appeals from final orders made exclusively under provincial legislation by a Family Court judge fall under the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court, as per s. 19(1)(a.1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The argument regarding monetary jurisdiction was dismissed as irrelevant given the specific statutory provisions governing family law appeal routes post-2021 amendments.

This case involved a family law trial where the applicant father sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence of the children, child support, and an interest in the family residence based on unjust enrichment.

The respondent mother failed to attend trial or provide financial disclosure.

The court granted the father all requested relief, including sole decision-making and primary residence for the children, prohibiting the mother from direct or indirect communication due to her history of impaired driving with the children and verbal threats of violence against them.

Child support was ordered based on an imputed income for the mother.

The court also found a "joint family venture" and ordered an equal division of the net proceeds from the sale of the family residence.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The appellant brought a motion before a single judge of the Court of Appeal seeking further financial disclosure from the respondent, related to a prior Superior Court decision on child support and parenting time.

The motion was dismissed.

The court held that it is a court of review, not original jurisdiction, for enforcing contractual or legislative obligations, and that new evidence on appeal requires a fresh evidence motion before a panel, which was not properly brought or justified.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a dismissed motion for disclosure brought by the applicant, Magdalena Duleba, against the respondent, Steve Guy Sorge, and a non-party, Mobile Fringe Inc. The court found no reason to deviate from the presumption that successful parties are entitled to costs.

It awarded costs to the self-represented respondent, Steve Guy Sorge, for his time and effort, and to Mobile Fringe Inc. on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant husband appealed an order striking his pleading in a matrimonial proceeding concerning equalization of assets.

The motion judge had struck the pleading for non-compliance with disclosure obligations in a consent order.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error by relying on four items not contained in the consent order or the record.

The court set aside the striking order and gave the appellant 30 days to comply with the consent order, particularly regarding an accounting of $300,000 in cash removed from a bank account between 2013 and 2015.

This 6.5-day trial addressed spousal support and the determination of the applicant wife's income following an 11-year marriage between two physicians with three children.

The wife sought compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, arguing her career choices and reduced work hours were made to accommodate child-rearing and the husband's more demanding career as an interventionist cardiologist.

The husband sought to impute a higher income to the wife based on an expert's report.

The court rejected the expert report due to methodological flaws, found the wife entitled to both compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, and declined to impute income to her.

Child support was also determined based on a set-off formula due to equal time-sharing.

The court ordered indefinite spousal support commencing January 1, 2015, and specified child support amounts from January 1, 2013, with annual review mechanisms.

The applicant sought sole guardianship of Juliet Eastlyn Hamilton for personal care under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, to implement a "Do Not Resuscitate" (DNR) direction and manage end-of-life care.

The co-guardian, Nicole Hamilton, and Juliet's spouse, Trevor Hamilton, opposed this, citing Juliet's religious beliefs and previous wishes for all possible steps to prolong life.

The court granted sole guardianship to the applicant, finding that his request was in Juliet's best interests based on objective medical evidence of her deteriorating health and constant pain, and that his intention was not to actively terminate life but to allow natural progression with a DNR.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to attribute increased income to the respondent for purposes of increasing child and spousal support, alleging that income was being diverted through businesses operated with the respondent’s current spouse.

Evidence indicated the companies shared operations, facilities, and financial arrangements, raising concerns that corporate structures were being used to shield income.

The respondent argued the issue should be determined at trial and that interim attribution would be prejudicial.

The court held that interim orders are appropriate pending trial and found the respondent’s declared income inconsistent with his lifestyle and business arrangements.

The court attributed income of $120,000 and ordered interim child and spousal support increases, and awarded partial indemnity costs for a previous motion.