Andrew Morrison

This decision arises from an uncontested family law trial following the striking of the respondent father’s pleadings for persistent non-compliance with disclosure and support obligations.

The court imputes income to the father, orders lump sum retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, grants an unequal division of net family property, and authorizes the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court declines to order the sale of corporate property not specifically pleaded.

The decision is notable for its detailed application of adverse inference, imputation of income, and the use of lump sum support to address enforcement concerns where the payor has absconded.

The mother brought a motion for an interim order permitting her to relocate to London, England with the parties' two-year-old child to accept a lucrative job offer and be closer to her family support network.

The father brought a cross-motion for a graduated parenting plan in Ontario.

The court granted the mother's motion to relocate, finding that she was the primary caregiver and that the father failed to meet the burden of proving the relocation was not in the child's best interests.

The court also addressed several evidentiary objections, striking surreptitious recordings and certain reply evidence, while allowing the evidence of a treating doctor as a participant expert.

The father's cross-motion was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay costs of $23,640.

The appellant, Michelle McGuire, appealed a trial decision regarding child support, spousal support, and a constructive trust claim, while the respondent, Michael Bator, cross-appealed on costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for child support and constructive trust, finding no error in the trial judge's factual findings.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part regarding spousal support, concluding the trial judge erred in limiting the duration and awarding a lump sum without proper analysis of spousal support objectives for a disabled spouse.

The Court of Appeal ordered continuing periodic spousal support in addition to the lump sum.

The cross-appeal on costs was dismissed, with the court upholding the trial judge's discretion to deny costs due to the respondent's unreasonable conduct.

The moving party sought leave to adduce fresh evidence and leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions and awarded costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

In a supplementary decision following an uncontested family law trial, the applicant sought to enforce support and equalization orders against the respondent's corporation.

The court pierced the corporate veil, finding the corporation was the respondent's alter ego and used to shield assets from the applicant.

The court also granted a vesting order directing financial institutions to transfer funds directly to the applicant, despite the relief not being specifically pleaded, as the court has broad equitable jurisdiction and the respondent suffered no prejudice due to his complete failure to participate or provide disclosure.

In an uncontested trial following a 29-year marriage, the applicant sought spousal support, an equalization payment, and the partition and sale of jointly owned properties.

The respondent, who was noted in default and failed to provide financial disclosure, controlled significant corporate assets and income.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $250,000 per year and awarded the applicant lump sum spousal support of $296,010 to mitigate the risk of non-payment.

The court also ordered an equalization payment of $2,170,144.73 and granted the applicant exclusive control over the partition and sale of the matrimonial home and cottage.

Two young persons were convicted of robbery simpliciter following a trial.

They were among a group that forcefully entered a hotel room in Oakville and robbed an escort of her personal belongings.

The young persons' culpability was grounded in party liability.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of three to six months followed by probation, while defence counsel sought probation with conditions.

The court found the offence constituted a violent offence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act due to psychological bodily harm to the victim and the home invasion nature of the crime.

However, considering the young persons' lack of prior records, their conduct while on bail, educational achievements, supportive family circumstances, and the mitigating factor of adult influence, the court imposed a non-custodial sentence of two years' probation with conditions including community service.

Three young persons were charged with robbery with a firearm, use of an imitation firearm during robbery, and related offences arising from a September 28, 2017 armed robbery of an escort at the Holiday Inn in Oakville.

The Crown's case relied heavily on eyewitness testimony from the victim, corroborating evidence from an adult co-accused, hotel security video surveillance, cellular phone records and extraction reports, and a hearsay statement from a hotel guest.

The defence challenged the identification of the accused and the reliability of the Crown's witnesses.

The court found that the Crown established identity beyond a reasonable doubt through a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence, including credible eyewitness testimony, forensic cellular analysis, and video surveillance.

However, the court found reasonable doubt as to whether an actual firearm or an imitation firearm was used.