Family and Matrimonial Law

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed both the main appeal and cross-appeal in a dispute over the beneficial ownership and occupation of a house acquired during a brief marriage.

The court upheld the application judge’s finding that Ms. Qu was the 100% beneficial owner of the house by way of resulting trust, rejecting Mr. Zhang’s arguments regarding the presumption of joint tenancy and the sufficiency of evidence.

The court also upheld the award of occupation rent to Ms. Qu and declined to order additional security for potential future repairs, finding no error in the application judge’s approach or findings.

The applicants filed complaints with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the apprehension of their children, sibling access, and the placement of the male applicant on the Child Abuse Register.

The respondent children's aid society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were currently before the court in child protection proceedings.

The Board agreed, finding that all issues raised in the complaints were squarely before the court, and dismissed the applications pursuant to section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of his access to his child, allegations of parental alienation, and staff conduct.

The respondent argued the CFSRB lacked jurisdiction because the issues were before the court.

The adjudicator found that issues 1 through 9 of the complaint had been squarely before the family court in a child protection application and were therefore outside the CFSRB's jurisdiction under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

Those issues were dismissed, and directions were given for written submissions on the remaining two issues concerning staff interactions.

The applicant, the adult sister of five children in care, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Society failed to provide reasons for its decision to terminate her in-person access and deny her request for unsupervised outdoor access.

The Board found that the Society did not provide meaningful reasons, as it relied on the applicant's father to relay information and failed to explain why access needed to be supervised or how outdoor access contravened COVID-19 restrictions.

The Board ordered the Society to provide written reasons for its decisions.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 regarding the respondent's handling of his child protection file.

The respondent challenged the CFSRB's jurisdiction, arguing the issues were currently before the family court in a custody and access proceeding.

The adjudicator found that the CFSRB lacked jurisdiction over issues directly related to the court proceedings, such as access decisions and the mother's alleged alcohol use.

However, the CFSRB retained jurisdiction over issues concerning the respondent's decision-making process, including whether the applicant was heard and provided with adequate reasons.

The applicants, who were foster parents, sought a review of the children's aid society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a child who had lived with them for 22 months.

The society had removed the child and refused the adoption due to a verified child protection concern regarding unexplained bruising on another foster child in the applicants' care.

The Board found the society's investigation was significantly flawed and concluded the bruising was likely the result of accidental infliction of harm during a game.

Determining that the applicants posed no risk of harm and that the child was strongly attached to them, the Board rescinded the society's decision and ordered the child placed with the applicants for adoption.

The self-represented applicant sought to record the hearing of his application before the Child and Family Services Review Board and alleged that one of the panel members had a conflict of interest.

The Board dismissed the conflict of interest allegation, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Board also denied the applicant's request to record the hearing, noting that the Board's proceedings are confidential and the applicant had no absolute right to record them.

Due to the applicant's disrespectful conduct, the Board directed the parties to make submissions on whether the application should be dismissed for abuse of process.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the respondent Society failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement.

The agreement required the Society to provide a letter explaining its investigation into the applicant's concerns about inadequate supervision and medical neglect of his children by their mother.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the Society's Explanation Letter and found that it adequately addressed all questions required by the settlement agreement.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review what they believed was a refusal by the respondent children's aid society to allow them to adopt a child.

The respondent had not provided written notice of a refusal and maintained it had not made a decision to refuse the application.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter because the respondent had not yet issued a written notice of refusal as required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's handling of her concerns about her cousin's safety and an alleged breach of confidentiality.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was ineligible to bring a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, because she had not sought or received services from the society.

The applicant filed multiple applications against the respondent children's aid society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

After failing to participate in case management and mediation, the applicant sought to withdraw her current applications just after the deadline for submissions on whether she should be declared a vexatious litigant.

The Child and Family Services Review Board granted the withdrawal but proceeded to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant due to her history of filing repetitive, unfounded applications for improper purposes and her failure to comply with tribunal processes.

The applicant is required to obtain permission before filing future applications.

The applicant alleged that the respondent society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons for its adoption placement decisions regarding three siblings.

The society provided its written response one week after the agreed-upon compliance date.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the society breached the agreement regarding the timing of the response, the applicant suffered no prejudice.

The Board further found that the content of the society's written response, supplemented by oral explanations during the teleconference, fulfilled its obligations under the settlement agreement and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicants, foster parents of a child who had lived with them for just over one year, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the society's decision to remove the child from their home.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the governing legislation requires a child to have lived continuously with the foster parents for at least two years before such a review can be requested.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons for various decisions regarding her grandchildren.

A non-compliance teleconference was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The adjudicator proceeded in her absence and reviewed the written materials.

The adjudicator found that the Society had provided adequate reasons and explanations for each of the seven terms in the agreement, as required by section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring the Society to provide reasons for its decisions regarding child protection investigations.

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a teleconference hearing and found that the Society had provided substantive and detailed answers to the applicant's questions, thereby meeting its obligations under the agreement and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The respondent challenged the Child and Family Services Review Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues were already before the Superior Court of Justice in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board found that most of the applicant's allegations were outside its jurisdiction as they were before the court.

However, the Board retained jurisdiction over the narrow issue of whether the respondent heard the applicant's concerns and provided meaningful reasons for refusing to change the assigned family services worker.

Following the breakdown of a 12-year marriage, the applicant sought spousal support, enforcement of equalization and costs, and related relief.

Evidence showed the applicant worked part-time during the relationship while performing primary domestic responsibilities and contributing all earnings to the household, while the respondent had historically earned high income in mining-related employment but failed to comply with prior support and disclosure orders.

The court found the respondent intentionally under‑employed and imputed income based on his historical earnings.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court fixed ongoing spousal support and confirmed significant arrears.

The court also enforced outstanding cost awards through the Family Responsibility Office.

The court provided procedural directions for a consolidated trial involving corporate oppression claims, family law claims, and disputes over alleged ownership interests in several companies and properties.

Multiple parties proposed competing structures for the order in which the issues should be tried.

The court held that the determination of ownership interests in the companies and properties must occur first before any remedies could be considered, as premature remedies could prejudice other parties’ claims.

The court rejected a proposal to resolve one party’s oppression action in its entirety before the others and instead structured the trial into staged phases addressing ownership, family law and corporate claims, and finally remedies.

The court also imposed strict deadlines for motions, disclosure, and examinations prior to trial.

The appellant father appealed a child protection disposition order granting Crown wardship with no access regarding two children.

He argued the trial judge erred in fact by ignoring evidence that parental substance abuse and domestic violence had ceased and erred in law by placing undue emphasis on continuity of care under s. 37(3)7 of the Child and Family Services Act while failing to properly balance other statutory factors, including cultural identity considerations for Indigenous children under s. 37(4).

The court held that no palpable and overriding factual error or legal error was demonstrated and that the trial judge had properly considered the relevant statutory factors.

The court found that the evidence regarding the harm of disrupting the long‑term foster placement supported the disposition.

The appeal was dismissed and no costs were awarded.

The moving party sought to vary a prior interim order requiring monthly payments of $10,000 to the responding party, requesting a reduction and other financial relief including imputation of income and disclosure orders.

The responding party brought a cross‑motion seeking to strike the moving party’s pleadings for repeated breaches of court orders and to have him found in contempt.

The court found the moving party had failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances and had not provided sufficient financial disclosure to justify a variation.

The court also found beyond a reasonable doubt that the moving party wilfully failed to comply with an order requiring the matrimonial home to be listed for sale and made a finding of contempt.

The variation motion was dismissed, the payments were characterized as child and spousal support based on an imputed income of $350,000, and arrears were fixed and payable from the sale proceeds of the matrimonial home.