Family and Matrimonial Law

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Mounia Hassani Alami from a comprehensive trial judgment addressing property, support, and tort claims following the parties’ separation and divorce.

The appeal focused on the trial judge’s findings regarding a resulting trust in the matrimonial home and responsibility for a post-separation mortgage.

The Court upheld the trial judge’s application of the resulting trust doctrine and allocation of mortgage responsibility, finding no reviewable error.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a summary judgment motion seeking a custody order for the child, L.S., in favour of his paternal great-aunt, with supervised access to the mother.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding either the custody disposition or the access arrangements.

The mother had failed to take meaningful steps to address the Society's concerns, and the child was thriving in the great-aunt's care.

The court granted the custody order to the great-aunt and set conditions for the mother's supervised access, emphasizing the child's best interests and the need for permanency.

A 17-year-old student, Josh Alexander, sought to appeal suspension and exclusion decisions by his school principal to the Renfrew County Catholic District School Board.

The Education Act requires a parent or guardian to appeal for a student of his age unless the student has withdrawn from parental control.

Josh asserted he had withdrawn from parental control, a position supported by his parents, but the School Board refused him standing, citing insufficient objective evidence.

The court found that Josh Alexander had indeed withdrawn from parental control as of December 22, 2022, and therefore had the necessary standing to advance his appeals to the School Board.

The decision clarified that financial independence is not a prerequisite for withdrawal from parental control, especially when parents voluntarily continue to support their independent adult children.

The respondent mother sought an order for costs against the applicant father for breaching a prior court order that mandated all communications between the parties be through counsel or a third party, limited to child-related issues, brief, informative, courteous, and free of derogatory comments.

The applicant sent numerous emails and text messages directly to the respondent and her counsel that were derogatory, offensive, and threatening.

The court found the applicant in clear breach of the communication terms, rejected his claims of frustration and misunderstanding, and awarded costs of $5,000 for the breach and $500 for the motion to the respondent.

The Children's Aid Society of Oxford County brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that the children were in need of protection and a final custody order under s.102(1) of the CYFSA in favour of the maternal grandmother, T.K., with access to the parents.

The father, J.P., opposed the custody order, seeking a further supervision order, while the mother, V.B., did not oppose the children remaining with T.K. The court found the children continued to be in need of protection due to the parents' substance use and instability, and granted the summary judgment, terminating the supervision order and placing the children in T.K.'s sole care and custody, with supervised parenting time for both parents.

The applicant wife brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, both retroactive and ongoing, for herself and the three children of the marriage.

The court determined the respondent husband's income for support purposes to be $400,000, higher than his claimed income.

The court ordered temporary child support for two children (Maggie and William) and temporary spousal support, with adjustments for when the children attend university away from home.

The wife's claim for retroactive support was adjourned to trial.

The court declined to impute income to the wife at this stage, recognizing her efforts towards self-sufficiency.

The Applicant sought equalization of net family property, retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, and Section 7 expenses.

The parties disputed the cohabitation date, the Respondent's interest in a farm property, and the inclusion of certain bank accounts and deductions in the Net Family Property Statement.

The court found the Applicant credible and the Respondent not credible, imputed income to the Respondent due to inadequate financial disclosure and intentional under-employment, and ordered an equalization payment, ongoing child and spousal support, and retroactive Section 7 expenses.

The divorce was granted.

Appeal from a motion judge's order varying child and spousal support orders from a 1999 judgment.

The respondent sought to vary support based on changed circumstances, including health issues and reduced income.

The motion judge terminated spousal support as of December 31, 2002, based on the appellant's material change in circumstances (employment and remarriage), and reduced child support from 2004 onwards due to the respondent's declining income.

The appellant appealed the variation of support orders and the dismissal of a fraudulent conveyance application.

The respondent cross-appealed the refusal to award costs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part regarding child support, dismissed the appeals regarding spousal support and fraudulent conveyances, and dismissed the cross-appeal on costs.

The applicant sought interim interim retroactive and ongoing spousal support, and an advance on her equalization payment for legal fees.

The respondent sought to sever the divorce from corollary relief.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $250,000 and attributed no income to the applicant, ordering $9,500 per month in spousal support retroactively from January 1, 2018, with credit for amounts already paid.

The request for an advance payment of costs was denied due to insufficient evidence of necessity and the applicant's financial resources.

The court granted the severance of the divorce, finding no legal disadvantage to the applicant.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking resumption of court-ordered access to his child, make-up access, permission to amend his response to seek sole custody, transfer of residence if access continued to be denied, police enforcement of access, disclosure of Children's Aid records, and costs.

The respondent mother had denied all access since September 16, 2018, claiming the child had made allegations of mistreatment.

The Children's Aid Society investigated but did not verify the allegations.

The court found the mother in breach of the April 25, 2017 order and applied Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to impose sanctions.

The court granted make-up access on specified dates, permission to amend the response, and allowed the applicant to serve the Children's Aid Societies for disclosure.

The trial addressed the quantum of spousal support payable by the respondent to the applicant following a long marriage and the applicant's severe medical disability.

The court applied a non-compensatory model of need, considering the applicant's Canada Pension Plan disability benefits and the respondent's employment income.

A central issue was the treatment of Manulife insurance benefits covering 95% of the applicant's long-term care costs.

The court decided to include these non-taxable insurance payments in the respondent's income for Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines calculations, while also accounting for the respondent's insurance premium costs.

Spousal support was awarded at the lower end of the Guidelines range, and specific orders were made for the distribution of past insurance payouts and the ongoing management of benefits.

Retroactive spousal support for the period the applicant was hospitalized was denied.

A child protection society sought a summary judgment order denying a father access to his seven-year-old daughter following his criminal convictions for serious offences against the mother, including sexual assault and human trafficking.

The father had been ordered supervised access by the Quebec Superior Court but the mother subsequently moved to Ontario with the child.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the father's access, including conflicting evidence about why the Quebec access order was not implemented, insufficient evidence about the impact of access on the mother's mental health and parenting capacity, and concerns about the father's lack of insight into his conduct.

The court ordered a focused trial on the access issue while placing the child in the mother's care subject to society supervision.

The applicant, a transgender male, sought a divorce from his Texas marriage and an annulment of his subsequent Ontario marriage to the respondent.

The court found the Texas marriage valid under Ontario conflict of laws rules, applying Canadian law due to lack of proof of foreign law.

Consequently, the Ontario marriage was deemed bigamous and annulled.

The court also addressed procedural matters regarding proof of prior divorce and service under the Hague Service Convention.

The respondent father sought to vary a child support order made on consent on November 27, 2013, which imputed his annual income at $120,000.

He sought retroactive variation to January 1, 2014, based on his declared income as shown on his tax returns for 2014 ($43,813) and 2015 ($48,533).

The applicant mother opposed the motion.

The court found that the respondent had not established a material change in circumstances since the consent order.

The respondent continued in the same business and his new accountants still relied solely on information provided by him.

The court dismissed the motion to change with respect to the child support amount, finding that the respondent's reliance on declared income did not overcome the basis for the original imputation.

The applicant sought spousal support from the respondent in a common-law relationship that lasted approximately eight years.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing the applicant was not entitled to support or that any obligation had been satisfied through prior payments.

The court found the applicant entitled to spousal support on non-compensatory grounds based on economic dependency, need, and the respondent's ability to pay, despite rejecting the applicant's compensatory claim.

The court determined the applicant's imputed income and the respondent's income capacity, then structured a declining support award within the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines ranges.

This decision addresses costs following competing motions for temporary relief regarding access and the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The court granted supervised access to the child at the father's expense, while also granting the father's request for OCL appointment.

The court found the mother largely successful on the access motion but noted unreasonable delay in advancing her position.

Considering the divided success and the mother's conduct, the court awarded the mother partial indemnity costs of $1,400.00, inclusive of HST, payable by the father.

In a high-conflict family law matter involving custody and access of a minor child, the mother brought a motion seeking to eliminate the father's mid-week access, regulate access transfer locations, obtain police enforcement of access terms, recover child support contributions for extraordinary expenses, and strike the father's pleadings for non-compliance with disclosure orders.

The court granted a conditional opportunity for the father to comply with disclosure orders by December 22, 2015, dismissed the claim for section 7 expenses without prejudice, established specific transfer locations for access exchanges, declined to order police enforcement, and awarded costs of $750 to the mother for the disclosure non-compliance issue.

A motion to change a final custody and restraining order made in 2005.

The respondent, who had been convicted of sexual assault and served a sentence, sought to remove a restraining order prohibiting contact with the applicant (mother) and children in order to obtain access.

The respondent claimed a material change in circumstances based on completion of treatment at a correctional facility and gender transition.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no material change warranting modification and that access was not in the children's best interests given the respondent's history of sexual violence, ongoing risky lifestyle choices, eight-year gap in contact, and the children's stability in their current home.

A costs decision following a motion to change custody and access arrangements.

The respondent sought to change the primary residence of the child and restrict the third party's unsupervised access.

The applicant opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion.

The parties settled on the basis of recommendations from the Children's Lawyer's investigation.

The court found that success was divided: the respondent was unsuccessful in changing custody and primary residence but successful in reinstating and significantly expanding his access to the child and refuting serious allegations of abuse.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a divided success basis.

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary sole custody of the parties' four-year-old son, with the respondent mother bringing a cross-motion for the same relief.

The parties separated in February 2011 after marrying in May 2008.

Following separation, the respondent mother made allegations of abuse against the applicant, which were investigated by the Children's Aid Society and found to be unsubstantiated.

Criminal charges were subsequently withdrawn when it became apparent the child had been coached.

The court found the respondent mother had engaged in a campaign to discredit the applicant and subjected the child to unnecessary intervention.

The applicant father was found to offer a more stable environment and balanced approach.

The court granted temporary custody to the applicant father with liberal and generous access to the respondent mother.