Family and Matrimonial Law

The Mother and Grandmother sought to vary a final parenting order, requesting week-about parenting, shared decision-making, and mandatory reunification therapy.

The court dismissed their applications, finding no material change in circumstances and that the proposed changes were not in the children's best interests, giving significant weight to the children's clear and consistent views.

The court also ordered the Mother to seek leave before filing future motions due to her extensive litigation history.

The applicant mother sought an order to relocate the parties' two children to Italy for a 10-month school year to advance her career.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and brought a cross-motion for interim decision-making authority and primary residence.

The court, applying the best interests of the child framework from the Divorce Act and Barendregt v Grebliunas, found the mother's relocation plan reasonable and in the children's best interests, considering her career advancement, the temporary nature of the move, and her detailed plan for maintaining the father's parenting time.

The father's cross-motion was dismissed, and the mother was granted permission to obtain passports for the children without the father's consent.

Travel costs were apportioned 75% to the mother and 25% to the father.

The applicant father sought the return of the parties' child to Portugal under the Hague Convention, alleging wrongful removal by the respondent mother.

The child was born in Portugal in 2020 and removed to Canada by the mother in June 2022.

The court found that while the child's habitual residence was Portugal, the father did not have custody rights under Portuguese law that would render the removal wrongful.

Even if the removal were wrongful, the court found two exceptions to mandatory return applied: the father acquiesced to the child remaining in Canada, and there was a grave risk of harm to the child if returned to Portugal due to the father's pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour against the mother.

The father's application was dismissed.

The Applicant Mother sought temporary sole decision-making authority for the children's healthcare, vaccinations, education, and general well-being, and involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The Respondent Father sought a gradual expansion of parenting time to be equal, an order compelling the Mother to attend a "Pathways Through Conflict" program for alleged alienation, and an order for common rules and discipline.

The court granted the Mother temporary sole decision-making authority in all areas, particularly regarding vaccinations, citing the Father's nonsensical position on public health recommendations and lack of cooperation.

The court denied the Father's request for equal parenting time, maintaining the status quo with some adjustments to his parenting schedule, and dismissed his requests to compel the Mother to attend the program or agree to common rules, finding no evidence of alienation and emphasizing each parent's authority for day-to-day decisions during their parenting time.

The court also addressed evidentiary issues, ruling against the admissibility of hearsay and surreptitious audio recordings.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking the return of the children to Toronto after the applicant mother unilaterally relocated them to Montreal without notice or consent.

The mother argued the court lacked jurisdiction and that the father had acquiesced or unduly delayed.

She also raised allegations of family violence.

The court found that Ontario retained habitual residence, rejected the mother's claims of acquiescence and undue delay, and determined that the alleged family violence did not constitute compelling circumstances to justify the unauthorized relocation.

Applying established legal principles for relocation, the court ordered the children's return to Toronto, emphasizing the importance of statutory notice requirements and discouraging self-help measures in parenting disputes.

The trial concerned child support arrangements for the parties' daughter, specifically the start date for child support and the amount of arrears.

The mother sought retroactive support from the child's birth in 2012, while the father argued for the date of service of the application in 2019.

The court applied the Colucci framework for retroactive support, finding the presumptive start date to be August 6, 2019, as this was when the mother first gave effective notice.

The court declined to depart from this date, considering the mother's significant delay in seeking support and the undue hardship a further retroactive order would cause the father, who was a full-time student with other children and student debt.

The court quantified the arrears based on the father's income from August 6, 2019, and set out a payment plan.

This appeal concerned the jurisdiction of an Ontario court to make a child support order under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002 (ISO Act) when a foreign support order from Finland already existed, but its registration in Ontario had been set aside due to the payor's fraudulent misrepresentations.

The Superior Court had quashed the Ontario Court of Justice's order for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that two valid support orders could not coexist.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that section 21 of the ISO Act explicitly grants Ontario courts jurisdiction to hear a new support application in such circumstances, especially given the payor's deceptive conduct.

The court emphasized the ISO Act's purpose of facilitating support enforcement and dismissed concerns about potential double recovery.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to set aside a prior order that removed a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) from a property and to obtain an interim order prohibiting the property's sale, alleging fraud.

The court dismissed the urgent hearing request and the interim order prohibiting sale.

The judge found no new urgency, no newly discovered evidence, and insufficient cogent evidence to support the fraud allegations.

The court also noted the applicant's long-standing non-compliance with a disclosure order and that the prior order already provided for sale proceeds to be held in trust, mitigating irreparable harm.

The balance of the motion was adjourned.

A motion to change custody and access arrangements where the respondent sought to establish contact with his son after seven years of no contact.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought no access, child support, and a restraining order.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the child's age, strong preferences against contact, and the respondent's ongoing pattern of harassing and threatening behaviour.

The court ordered no access, imputed income for child support purposes, and issued a restraining order prohibiting direct and indirect contact.

The respondent mother brought a motion to change the surname of the parties' 8-year-old child to include her own surname, hyphenated with the father's surname.

The applicant father opposed the change, arguing it was not in the child's best interests given her age and established identity.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" test under the Change of Name Act, dismissed the mother's request, finding insufficient evidence that the child had an informed, independent, and consistent wish to change her name, or understood the permanent implications.

The court emphasized that changing a child's surname is a major child-rearing decision.

The applicant and respondent, common-law partners with two children, sought judicial determination on two outstanding issues following a consent order on custody and most access.

The respondent sought two additional days of access and a corresponding reduction in child support under section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court granted one minor access extension (on consent) but denied the second, more significant access request, finding it not to be in the children's best interests due to the respondent's post-night shift demeanor and the chaotic impact on the children's routine.

Consequently, the respondent did not meet the 40% threshold for shared custody, and no change was made to the child support quantum.

The applicant sought a one-half interest in the respondent's pension from the start of their cohabitation in 1991, arguing unjust enrichment and a joint family venture.

The respondent contended the applicant was only entitled to a share accumulated during their marriage (2012-2014).

The court found no unjust enrichment or joint family venture prior to marriage, noting separate finances, the respondent's self-funded education, and the applicant's limited contributions to household and childcare responsibilities after becoming unemployed.

The applicant's claim for a pre-marital pension share was dismissed, but he was awarded a lump sum representing half the pension value accumulated during the marriage.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court judgment dismissing their application for dependant's relief under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The motion judge found that the appellants did not establish the requisite relationship with the deceased to qualify for dependant's relief.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's findings of fact, including that the appellants and the deceased did not live together for any identifiable period and that the deceased did not have a settled intention to treat the second appellant as a child of his family.

The appellants' attempt to introduce fresh evidence regarding CPP survivor benefits was rejected as irrelevant.

The applicant husband, a self-represented lawyer, sought to amend his pleadings to include claims for equalization and trust, despite potential limitation period issues and a history of delayed financial disclosure.

The respondent wife incurred additional legal fees to amend her Answer in response to these new claims.

The court, in this costs ruling, awarded the respondent $2,640.27 for costs thrown away related to the original pleadings, finding this amount reasonable.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments regarding the respondent's conduct and his request to suspend payment, emphasizing that costs are determined summarily after each step and that a legally aided client's liability is not shielded by impecuniosity when acting unreasonably.

The applicant sought spousal support, equalization of net family property (NFP), security for NFP, transfer of a life insurance policy, and a restraining order.

The respondent disputed spousal support liability and asset valuations.

The court granted a divorce, cancelled spousal support arrears and found an overpayment by the respondent, continued a restraining order against the respondent, and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $60,688.10 for NFP equalization after adjustments.

The parties were directed to provide submissions on the form of the final order for asset division.

This is a judgment after trial in a family law application concerning access to a child.

The mother sought sole custody (granted on consent), child support (granted on consent), and supervised access to the child.

The father sought unsupervised access with gradual expansion to alternate weekends.

The court found that the father's volatile temper, manipulative personality, concerning comments about the child's body, and pattern of emotional abuse toward the mother and her counsel created serious risks to the child's safety and wellbeing.

The father refused to undergo recommended psychological and parenting capacity assessments despite knowing these were conditions for unsupervised access.

The court ordered that access remain supervised at a government-operated supervised access centre for two hours, three out of four weekends, with strict conditions on communication and contact with the mother.

Both parents brought motions to change a custody and access order dated October 9, 2013.

The father sought sole custody, termination of his support obligations, and child support from the mother.

The mother initially opposed but later sought a joint custody order with equal time-sharing and increased child support.

The court found a material change in circumstances since the original order.

The child had struggled in the mother's care but thrived under the father's primary care since January 2014.

The court awarded sole custody to the father based on his superior parenting abilities, the child's special medical and academic needs, and the mother's demonstrated poor parenting judgment.

The mother was ordered to pay child support of $360 per month commencing April 1, 2015, with arrears to be repaid at $150 per month starting September 1, 2015.

The applicant mother sought a declaration that the child was wrongfully removed from France by the respondent father and sought an order for the child's immediate return.

The father opposed the application, claiming a grave risk of physical or psychological harm to the child if returned to France.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in France, the mother had custody rights, the mother was exercising those rights at the time of removal, and the child was being wrongfully detained in Canada.

The court rejected the father's defences under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention, finding insufficient evidence of grave risk.

The court also found the child had not attained sufficient age and maturity to have her objections considered.

The court ordered the child's return to France, subject to transitional arrangements to be determined at a follow-up conference.

The mother brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole custody of four children, supervised access for the father, a restraining order, imputed income and child support.

The father opposed and brought a cross-motion seeking joint custody, mental health assessment of the mother, spousal support, and other relief.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted the mother's motion.

The father's untreated mental health issues, refusal to comply with court orders, harassment of the mother, and lack of involvement with the children supported sole custody and supervised access.

The court imputed income of $22,000 to the father based on his education, work history, and capacity to earn.

A mother sought an order placing her two-year-old child in her care and custody during a status review proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, or alternatively, sought to specify the details of her access (frequency, duration, location, and level of supervision).

The child had been in the care of the Children's Aid Society for over 18 months following apprehension due to protection concerns.

The court dismissed both the motion for interim care and custody and the motion for interim variation of the existing access order, finding that the mother failed to satisfy her evidentiary burden to demonstrate material changes in circumstances warranting a change from the status quo.

The court emphasized the importance of continuity of care for the young child and noted concerns regarding the mother's unresolved drug use, lack of stable housing, financial means, and childcare arrangements.