Family and Matrimonial Law

In this urgent family law motion, the applicant sought exclusive possession of the matrimonial home located in Toronto.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking exclusive possession with the children residing with him on a week-about parenting schedule.

The court granted the applicant's motion for exclusive possession on an interim basis, finding that the applicant, as the primary caregiver throughout the marriage with no current income, was in a more vulnerable position than the respondent, who had greater financial resources and could obtain alternative accommodation.

The court also imposed an interim parenting schedule providing the respondent with access every two out of three weekends plus weeknight parenting time, finding that the children's best interests required maintaining their relationship with their father despite the separation.

The respondent brought a motion seeking an order declaring the applicant, as trustee for a bankrupt individual, and/or the bankrupt individual, to be vexatious litigants requiring leave to commence further court actions.

The respondent also sought dismissal of the applicant's application to enforce a foreign judgment as frivolous, vexatious, or without merit.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding no evidence that the applicant was a vexatious litigant or that the application constituted an abuse of process.

The court emphasized that the applicant, as a court-appointed trustee in bankruptcy, occupied a distinct legal position from the bankrupt individual and that the respondent's arguments regarding the merits of the underlying application were better addressed at the hearing of the application itself.

This decision follows a 13-day trial regarding the breakdown of a six-year marriage with no children, focusing on property division and damages arising from domestic violence.

The court addresses claims for constructive and resulting trusts, the characterization of family advances as loans or gifts, equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, and damages for family violence.

The court finds that the applicant is entitled to a 50% interest in both properties by way of constructive trust, that certain family advances were loans and others gifts, and awards damages for family violence.

A permanent restraining order is also granted.

The court considered motions by the respondent, Mohammad Rahbar, to have the appellant, Nasya Peters, declared a vexatious litigant and for security for costs in relation to her appeal.

The court found that Ms. Peters had engaged in persistent, vexatious, and abusive litigation conduct, both in court and through communications with the respondent and his counsel.

The court declared Ms. Peters a vexatious litigant and ordered her to pay $10,000 into court as security for costs before she could continue her appeal.

The Applicant mother sought full indemnity costs of $5,556.66 following her successful summary judgment motion for the return of her children to her primary care.

The Respondent grandmother did not file a response to the costs submission.

The court found the grandmother's failure to attend a settlement conference and compelling the mother to file for summary judgment constituted unreasonable conduct, warranting an elevated costs award.

However, the court determined this conduct did not meet the high threshold for bad faith to justify full indemnity costs.

The court awarded the mother $4,500 in fixed costs.

This endorsement concerns a costs award following two motions heard on March 30, 2023.

The applicant mother's motion for financial disclosure was largely granted, while the respondent father's motion for extended parenting time and questioning was granted in relatively small part.

The court found the mother to be more successful overall and awarded her costs, taking into account settlement offers from both parties.

The father was ordered to pay the mother $12,000 in costs.

The applicant mother brought a motion alleging the respondent father breached a parenting order regarding virtual and in-person parenting time with their child.

She sought specified unsupervised parenting time in Nova Scotia and the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The court found the father in wilful non-compliance due to repeated missed virtual calls, obstruction of in-person visits, and disrespectful communication.

Applying Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court declined to exercise discretion in the father's favour.

The court ordered temporary, supervised in-person parenting time for the mother in Nova Scotia for two to three weeks during the summer, with the mother responsible for travel costs.

The OCL was appointed due to concerns about the child's emotional well-being, school attendance, and academic performance.

This case concerns an interim mobility motion where the respondent mother sought to relocate the child's primary residence from Brantford, Ontario, to Newfoundland.

The applicant father opposed the relocation and sought the child's return to Brantford and primary residence.

The court found that it was not in the child's best interests to be relocated, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the child's existing relationships and the shared parenting status quo.

The respondent's motion for relocation was dismissed, and an interim order was granted placing the child in the primary care of the applicant father in Brantford.

The respondent (mother) brought a temporary motion for child and spousal support, seeking to impute income of $96,000 to the applicant (father).

The father, a self-represented paralegal, failed to provide adequate financial disclosure and exhibited inconsistencies in his stated income and expenses.

The court imputed income of $96,000 to the father due to his lack of transparency and the discrepancy between his claimed income and lifestyle.

The court found the mother was unable to work due to her own health issues and the significant care needs of their three children.

Child support and spousal support were ordered based on the imputed income, with the father receiving a credit for some direct payments.

The court declined to order further disclosure from the mother given the father's non-compliance.

This ruling addresses the costs of an urgent motion brought by the father to reinstate parenting time, which was resolved by consent.

The father sought full recovery of costs, arguing the mother's non-compliance necessitated the motion.

The mother sought her own costs or that each party bear their own, arguing the motion was unnecessary and she was more successful as counselling was agreed upon.

The court found the father was more successful in reinstating parenting time, which the mother had unilaterally suspended in breach of a prior order.

However, the father also behaved unreasonably by not informing the mother about a counselling session with the child.

Considering both parties' unreasonable conduct and offers to settle, and the disproportionate legal costs, the court ordered the mother to pay the father $3,500.00 in costs.

The applicant brought a motion seeking further production of documents from the respondent's real estate lawyer's file related to a mortgage refinancing, arguing that previous productions were incomplete despite two prior motions.

The respondent claimed all documents had been produced and asserted solicitor-client privilege.

The court, noting the high conflict and lack of trust between the parties, ordered the respondent to instruct the lawyer to provide the applicant's counsel with a complete and unredacted copy of the entire file by a specified date, with provisions for extension due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Parents sought an extension of time to file their Answer/Plan of Care in a child protection proceeding under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The application was served on the parents on June 10, 2017, seeking a finding that the children were in need of protection due to excessive school absences.

The parents were initially granted an extension to September 25, 2017, but failed to file by that date.

Five months after service, they retained counsel and brought a motion for a further extension.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the parents' stated objectives could be achieved without filing pleadings, that no genuine issue for trial existed given the parents' agreement with the society's recommendations, and that the children's right to timely disposition outweighed the parents' right to participate through late-filed pleadings.

This trial addressed outstanding family law issues including retroactive and ongoing child support, section 7 expenses, and nominal spousal support.

Previous orders had resolved custody, access, and equalization.

The applicant sought significant retroactive support and imputation of income to the respondent.

The court found the respondent owed substantial retroactive child support and section 7 expenses for prior years, but declined to impute income, accepting his efforts to find new employment after involuntary layoffs.

The court also limited section 7 expenses by excluding gymnastics costs post-2015 due to the parties' changed financial means.

The respondent's claim of undue hardship was rejected due to insufficient evidence and poor financial disclosure.

The applicant was awarded costs.

This motion concerned interim orders in a high-conflict family law dispute.

The Applicant sought various relief regarding custody, access, child support, special expenses for a child with special needs, and a restraining order.

The court granted interim sole custody to the Applicant, established a specific access schedule for the Respondent, set the Respondent's income for child support purposes, and ordered contributions towards special therapy costs and a joint debt.

The court also addressed the Respondent's personal loan and retroactive child support, and imposed conditions for the payment of a prior costs order, including striking pleadings if not paid.

The applicant mother sought temporary child support from the respondent father for their two children, ages 7 and 9, requesting that his income be fixed at $60,000 per annum and that he contribute $200 per month toward child care expenses.

The respondent father opposed the support order and sought custody of the son and joint custody of the daughter.

The court determined that the arrangement did not constitute shared custody under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines, as the father had the children approximately 33.33% of the time.

The court rejected the father's undue hardship claim and established his income at approximately $51,000 per annum based on recent pay stubs.

The court ordered temporary child support of $758 per month commencing May 1, 2015, and declined to award retroactive support on a temporary basis, leaving that issue for trial determination.

The respondent father brought a motion to change child and spousal support provisions in a separation agreement dated December 22, 1999.

The father sought to reduce his child support obligations based on declining commission income and to fix arrears at zero.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and sought to maintain the father's imputed income at $80,000 per annum, arguing the father was intentionally underemployed.

The court found that while the father's gross commission income had declined, he had been significantly underpaying child support by structuring his financial affairs to declare substantially less income than available.

The court imputed income at $80,000 per annum, ordered ongoing child support of $1,823 per month, and fixed arrears at $10,000.

A custody and access dispute between the mother and father of a child born in 2006.

The father sought custody with supervised access to the mother; the mother sought sole custody and spousal support on a time-limited basis.

The court found extensive evidence of emotional and verbal abuse by the father toward the mother, the child in question, and the mother's other children from previous relationships.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, restricted the father's access to every second weekend and every second Wednesday, and ordered child support and time-limited spousal support.

The court found the father's disciplinary methods, including attempting to "break the child's spirit," to be inappropriate and harmful.

A Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that a child born in 2013 was in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act and should be made a ward of the Crown without access.

The child's mother consented to the order.

The father did not appear despite having answered.

The court found that the child was at risk of physical and emotional harm due to the mother's substance abuse, violent mood swings, and criminal history.

The father's extensive criminal record and incarceration history rendered him unable to provide care.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, making the child a Crown ward without access to either parent.

The respondent mother brought a motion to remove Mark Hurley as counsel of record for the Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society in a pending status review proceeding involving four children.

The motion was based on a conflict of interest arising from the fact that Hurley's law partner, Frank Philcox, had previously represented the respondent mother in protection proceedings involving the same children.

The court found that a solicitor-and-client relationship existed between the mother and Philcox, that confidential information was shared, and that insufficient safeguards were in place to protect the mother's solicitor-client privilege.

The court granted the motion and ordered Hurley's removal from the file.

Following a prior finding of contempt of a court order, the court addressed costs and sentencing.

The mother sought $15,033 in costs (or alternatively $10,880), while the father argued costs should not exceed $1,500 given his modest financial means.

The court applied the factors under the Family Court Rules and found the father's wilful breach of the court order constituted reprehensible conduct.

While considering the father's limited financial means and custody of the children, the court awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,000 payable at $800 per month.

For sentencing, the court rejected changing custody and access orders as punishment but ordered the father to submit to family counselling with a specified therapist, with the father bearing the cost of the first five sessions and thereafter sharing costs equally with the mother.