Family and Matrimonial Law

This decision addresses a temporary care and custody motion under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, where the applicant society sought supervision terms to protect eight children from potential sexual abuse by the paternal grandfather.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe there was a probable risk of harm due to credible allegations from two adult children of the paternal grandparents and the father's refusal to cooperate fully with the society’s investigation.

The court ordered supervision terms including prohibiting contact between the children and the paternal grandparents and permitting the society to interview the children privately, emphasizing the necessity of these measures to ensure the children's protection.

This four-day trial concerned a child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto regarding the child A.E. The Society sought a protection finding and an order placing the child in the care of the paternal grandparents under a supervision order, with access to the father at the agency's discretion.

The father sought the child's return.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the father's mental health, impulsive and risky behavior, and exposure to domestic violence.

The court ordered the child's placement with the paternal grandparents under a 12-month supervision order, with no access to either parent, and issued a restraining order against the father due to his non-compliance with previous orders and chaotic, hostile conduct during the trial.

The applicant sought child support, property division (equalization or constructive trust), and divorce, while the respondent challenged the validity of their marriage.

The trial ended abruptly due to the respondent's disruptive conduct.

The court found the respondent's credibility lacking.

The court determined the marriage was valid under the Marriage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.

M.3, applying the principles from Lalonde v. Agha.

The court imputed income for child support and ordered retroactive child support.

It also found a constructive trust in favour of the applicant for 50% of the property sale proceeds due to her contributions and the respondent's unjust enrichment, and ordered adjustments for advances, a second mortgage, and costs.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking to amend her application to claim a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against the former matrimonial home and to add the husband's sister as a respondent.

The wife alleged two fraudulent conveyances: first, the husband secretly purchased the matrimonial home through a corporation he owned, and second, he transferred the property from the corporation to his sister without consideration.

The court granted the CPL and added the sister as a party, finding a high probability of the wife succeeding on her claims for an unequal division of net family property and support.

The court emphasized the husband's surreptitious conduct, non-disclosure, and lack of assets as factors favoring the CPL, and ordered the husband to pay costs.

The trial concerned decision-making responsibilities, parenting time, and child support for the parties' child.

The mother had unilaterally removed the child from the jurisdiction to Florida, violating a prior court order.

The court found the father to be a credible witness capable of providing stability, while the mother was found not credible, impulsive, and lacking judgment, particularly regarding the child's education and relationship with the father.

The court granted the father primary residence and sole decision-making authority, with the mother having alternate weekend parenting time, contingent on providing government documents.

The claim for spousal support was dismissed, and child support issues were deferred for further submissions.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice heard an 11-day trial concerning property equalization, child support, spousal support, and a claim for damages related to family violence.

The court recognized a common law tort of family violence, finding the Father liable for a 16-year pattern of physical, psychological, and financial abuse.

The Mother was awarded $150,000 in compensatory, aggravated, and punitive damages for the tort.

The court also made findings on the parties' incomes, ordered retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, and determined the final equalization payment, largely in the Mother's favour.

This is a child protection matter under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

Following an appeal that remitted the issue of access back to trial, the court determined whether the respondent father should be granted access to two children in the extended care of the Children's Aid Society.

The respondent father withdrew his claim for access mid-trial after hearing evidence from the Society.

The court applied the new best interests test established in recent Court of Appeal decisions and determined that access was not in the children's best interests, considering their trauma histories, emotional development, stability in their prospective adoptive placement, and the absence of a meaningful relationship with the respondent father.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton applied for a secure treatment order for the child O.O., who consented to the placement.

The court, proceeding in writing due to COVID-19, reviewed the application under Part VII of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

It applied the six guiding principles for secure treatment applications, modified to reflect the child's consent.

The court found that all six criteria under s. 164(1) of the CYFSA were met, including O.O.'s mental disorder, recent and chronic self-harm/harm to others, the efficacy and availability of treatment at Roberts Smart Centre, and the lack of less restrictive alternatives.

The court granted the order for 180 days of secure treatment, emphasizing O.O.'s best interests and continuity of care.

The Respondent father brought an emergency motion to prevent the Applicant mother from moving their two children (aged six and five) outside of St. Catharines, Ontario.

The mother had filed an application seeking leave to move with the children to Watertown, New York, and intended to make an interim move to Kingston, Ontario.

The court, confirming the urgency previously determined by a Triage Judge, found that while the existing custody order did not explicitly preclude the move, it would significantly impact the father's access.

The court granted the father's emergency motion, issuing a temporary order prohibiting the mother from moving the children's residence outside St. Catharines without the father's prior written consent or further court order, pending the final determination of the mobility application.

This decision addresses the costs arising from competing motions regarding children's residence and parenting time.

The respondent was largely successful in the underlying motions, leading to a presumptive entitlement to costs.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the applicant's conduct, while misleading regarding relocation, did not unduly protract proceedings.

The court reduced the respondent's claimed partial indemnity costs by five hours of lawyer time to account for issues (equalization, property, spousal support) settled by a prior consent order that included a 'no costs' provision.

The applicant was ordered to pay $9,505 in costs.

A custody and child support trial involving two unmarried parents of a four-year-old child.

The applicant father sought sole custody with limited access for the respondent mother, while the respondent sought sole custody with alternating weekend and mid-week access for the father.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding that while both parents were evenly matched on most best interests factors, the mother demonstrated greater willingness to compromise and include the father in the child's care.

The father's pattern of argumentative behavior, unilateral decision-making, and unwillingness to cooperate with professionals and the other parent weighed against him.

The court also imputed income to the father and ordered retroactive child support arrears.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order for the respondent to post $10,000 to $15,000 as security for costs.

This motion was in response to the respondent's pending motion to suspend, vary, and terminate provisions from a prior trial decision, including spousal and child support obligations and equalization payments.

The applicant highlighted the respondent's failure to pay numerous court-ordered debts and ongoing support, arguing the variation motion constituted a collateral attack on unappealed determinations.

The court, balancing the respondent's stated unemployment with significant reported assets, ordered the respondent to pay $10,000 into court as security for costs.

The respondent's motion to vary was stayed until this payment was made, and the applicant was awarded $800 in costs for this motion.

The applicant, Ernest Below, brought a motion for custody of the parties' two young children after the respondent, Stacy Sheene, moved with them from Florida to Ontario.

Sheene had returned to Florida for medical treatment, leaving the children with Below's parents, and intended to return to Florida with the children due to a breakdown in financial support and relationship with Below.

Below obtained a temporary order preventing their removal from Canada.

The court determined it lacked jurisdiction over the custody and access issues, finding that the children's habitual residence remained Florida.

The court declined to exercise jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act, ordered the termination of the temporary order, and directed the children's return to Florida in Ms. Sheene's care, with Mr. Below responsible for travel expenses.

The applicant brought a motion to strike evidence from the respondent's affidavit, alleging mediation/settlement privilege and non-compliance with the Family Law Rules.

The evidence related to an alleged separation agreement concerning spousal support waiver and share division.

The court ruled that the existence and enforceability of such an agreement are trial issues, not to be determined on interim motions for spousal support or disclosure.

The respondent was ordered to remove privileged and non-compliant materials and to confine his evidence for the substantive motions to whether the applicant has established a prima facie case that no enforceable agreement exists.

The applicant father sought costs after the respondent mother failed to attend trial and did not submit costs arguments despite being served with the decision and costs submissions.

The court awarded the father $8,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, finding the amount fair and reasonable given the father's success and the mother's failure to participate in the costs process.

The court emphasized that costs rules aim to indemnify successful litigants, encourage settlement, and discourage inappropriate litigant behavior, including ignoring court processes.

Chappell Partners LLP (CP), counsel for the respondent Miranda Leigh Smith, sought full recovery costs of $5,518.50 against the applicant Peter Brian Cozzi.

Cozzi was the unsuccessful party on a motion heard December 16, 2015, which sought to remove a collateral mortgage secured by CP for fees.

The court found Cozzi's conduct unreasonable, noting he brought a motion for relief already pleaded in another file and made unproven, false allegations of fraud and dishonesty against CP, particularly regarding independent legal advice.

Applying Rule 24(11)(b) of the Family Law Rules and common law principles, the court awarded full recovery costs to CP against Cozzi.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to impute income to the respondent for child support purposes.

The respondent had failed to comply with court-ordered financial disclosure obligations for over nineteen months despite multiple court orders and extensions.

The court found that the respondent's persistent non-compliance with disclosure orders, combined with evidence of an affluent lifestyle, unexplained income deposits, and contradictory statements about his employment, justified drawing an adverse inference and imputing income at a conservative level.

The court granted summary judgment and ordered the respondent to pay child support based on imputed income, retroactive to the date of service of the application.

The applicant mother brought a motion to lift the automatic stay imposed on her custody and access application under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondent father had commenced a divorce proceeding in Superior Court of Justice seeking joint custody.

The court considered whether to lift the stay by examining bad faith, prejudice, and waste of court resources.

The court found that the father's divorce application was premature, issued after being served with the mother's application and despite knowing a court date was already scheduled.

The court determined that all issues except the divorce itself could be dealt with in the Ontario Court of Justice and that the mother would suffer prejudice if required to proceed in Superior Court, particularly given language barriers and her vulnerability to the father's control.

The motion was granted and the automatic stay was lifted.

Application by the mother for custody and support of the child Ryker Christian Howard, born December 4, 2012.

The father sought custody/access and quantification of child support.

The parties resolved custody and access issues on May 28, 2014, with the mother having primary care and the father having specified access.

The court determined child support based on imputed income of $23,000 per annum for the father, ordered monthly payments of $195.00 plus arrears payments and extraordinary expense contributions, and issued a support deduction order.

The applicant sought spousal support from the respondent, claiming they had cohabited as common law spouses for at least three years.

The respondent disputed the claim, arguing that the three-year threshold had not been met and that he had no financial obligation to the applicant.

The court found that the parties had cohabited as common law spouses for approximately eleven years, commencing around 1993 when the respondent moved into the applicant's residence at 907 Premier Road.

The court ordered ongoing spousal support, recognizing the applicant's contributions to the relationship and the economic consequences of the relationship's breakdown.

The court also considered the respondent's subsequent family obligations but determined that these did not eliminate his support obligations to the applicant.