Family and Matrimonial Law

The respondent moved to quash the appellant's appeal from a May 21, 2024 trial judgment in family law proceedings.

The trial judge had found the appellant engaged in coercive and controlling behaviour, psychological abuse of the child, failure to honour support obligations, and efforts to alienate the child from the respondent.

The appellant failed to comply with a stay order requiring payment of support arrears within 30 days and continued to breach court orders regarding parenting time and support payments.

The Court of Appeal found this to be one of the clearest cases justifying quashing an appeal, citing the appellant's deliberate and unwavering breach of crystal-clear orders, substantial arrears, and pattern of vexatious and frivolous litigation.

The court fixes costs following an undefended trial in a family law matter where the respondent repeatedly ignored court orders and failed to participate in the proceedings.

The applicant sought full recovery of costs due to the respondent's bad faith conduct.

The court found that the respondent's actions—deliberately ignoring orders and withholding parenting time to leverage financial issues—constituted bad faith.

Costs were fixed at $45,000, to be paid from the respondent’s share of the matrimonial home.

The court provided clarification regarding the operative priorities of payments from the respondent's frozen Canaccord accounts, as requested by Justice Diamond.

The endorsement clarified that a January 5, 2024 order, which required the liquidation of assets up to $7,975,007.60 to be paid to the applicant's barristers in trust, takes precedence.

Consequently, no further funds are to be paid out of these specific Canaccord accounts for the children's tuition or any other reason under earlier orders (October 5, 2021, or November 12, 2021) until the specified amount has been fully paid to the barristers.

The court also dismissed the respondent's procedural objections regarding the motion.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a four-day trial on parenting and support.

The mother (applicant) was largely successful on parenting and more successful on financial issues, including imputed income and spousal support.

The father (respondent) engaged in serious unreasonable behaviour by breaching court orders regarding the child's return to Canada.

However, the mother was found to have acted in bad faith by altering a text message.

The court awarded the mother $20,000 in costs, but ordered her to pay the father $5,000 due to her bad faith, resulting in a net costs award of $15,000 to the mother, payable in installments.

This endorsement addresses the scope of the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) involvement in a family law matter.

The OCL sought to expand its order to include a section 112 clinical assessment for both children, not just the older child, citing identified parenting issues and the high-conflict nature of the case.

The respondent mother opposed the expansion for the younger child, arguing he was not the subject of current litigation and that the court lacked jurisdiction without a formal motion to vary.

The court found that a Motion to Vary involving both children was already pending, initiated by the mother in 2020 with the father's response addressing both children.

Additionally, the court affirmed its authority under section 112(3) of the Courts of Justice Act to request such a report on its own initiative.

The court ordered the OCL's involvement to be expanded to include a section 112 report for both children, deeming it necessary to determine a parenting arrangement in their best interests.

The respondent father brought an urgent temporary motion seeking primary residence of the two children, alleging the applicant mother had mental health and addiction issues requiring treatment.

The court found insufficient evidence to establish the mother posed a danger to herself or the children, noting that professional assessments did not support such claims.

The court denied the father's request for immediate primary custody, maintaining the children's primary residence with the mother to ensure stability, given their recent move and enrollment in new schools.

An urgent s.30 assessment was ordered to evaluate the mother's parenting ability and the children's best interests and wishes.

This judgment concludes a four-day trial addressing child support and spousal support.

The court determined the applicant's income for support purposes, calculated child support under s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, and assessed the respondent's entitlement to spousal support.

The court declined to impute additional income to the applicant from reimbursed business expenses, finding them legitimate.

For child support, the court ordered the applicant to pay a set-off amount plus an additional $100 per month to ensure similar standards of living for the children in both households, considering the income disparity and the respondent's higher housing costs.

The respondent's claim for spousal support, both compensatory and non-compensatory, was dismissed, as the court found no economic sacrifices made by him during the marriage and that his mental health did not impede his ability to work.

The applicant, Sahil Kapila, brought a motion to remove his father, Prem Kumar Kapila, as an added respondent in a matrimonial dispute with his former spouse, Rubi Chhina.

Rubi had added Prem, making various claims including domestic violence, trespass, rent/utilities, and trust claims over property and funds.

The court found that Rubi's claims against Prem did not disclose a reasonable cause of action under Rule 7(3) of the Family Law Rules, nor did they meet the threshold for adding a party under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted the motion to remove Prem as a party, thereby also dismissing Rubi's cross-motion seeking financial disclosure and freezing of Prem's assets.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking temporary sole decision-making responsibility for the child's education and health, and primary residence in India, varying a previous order.

The respondent mother opposed and implicitly sought the child's return to Canada, but did not bring a formal motion for this relief.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the child's relocation and inability to attend school.

Applying the test from Thomas v Wohleber, the court granted the father temporary sole decision-making authority for education and health, and primary parenting time in India, finding it to be in the child's best interests to ensure continued schooling and access to counselling.

The court retained jurisdiction as the child's habitual residence had not changed.

The applicant father and respondent mother brought cross-motions concerning the relocation of their two children from Brampton to Scarborough.

The mother sought permission to move due to the sale of her parents' home, while the father opposed the move and sought primary residence or increased parenting time.

The court found that the mother had a compelling reason to relocate but determined that the move, as proposed, was not entirely in the children's best interests, particularly regarding the disruption to the status quo and the impact on the father-child relationship.

Applying the new Children's Law Reform Act provisions, the court ordered an interim arrangement of equal week-about parenting time for both parents, with the children to be enrolled in their previous Brampton school or an alternative Catholic school in Toronto, aiming to minimize travel and maintain stability until trial.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order requiring her to pay spousal support to the respondent, whom the trial judge found was her common-law spouse.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the parties were spouses under the Family Law Act, despite the trial judge's erroneous reference to the Divorce Act criteria for spousal support.

The court found this error not material due to significant overlap in statutory criteria and ample evidence supporting the respondent's economic dependence.

The appeal regarding spousal support and trial costs was dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking to increase his parenting time with the parties' three children to an equally shared schedule.

The respondent mother opposed, advocating for the continuation of the existing alternate weekend schedule.

The court, applying the recently amended Divorce Act, found it was in the children's best interests to allocate parenting time on a "week-about" shared schedule.

The decision emphasized that a status quo unilaterally imposed by one parent is not a strict presumption and gave significant weight to the Office of the Children's Lawyer report and the children's expressed wishes.

The applicant sought divorce, custody, child support, equalization of net family property, and costs in an uncontested trial.

The respondent, who had relocated to Egypt and failed to file an answer, was not present.

The court granted the applicant sole custody of the child, ordered equalization of net family property, vested the respondent's vehicle in the applicant as partial payment of costs, granted the divorce, and awarded the applicant $20,000 in costs.

The Royal Bank of Canada brought a motion for summary judgment seeking possession of a property, leave to issue a writ of possession, and dismissal of a counterclaim by Shila Dabirinejad.

Ms. Dabirinejad, the spouse of the property's sole registered owner, Ali Sharafdin, argued that the bank knew or ought to have known she was Mr. Sharafdin's spouse and that her consent was not obtained for a charge registered on the property, which she claimed was the matrimonial home.

The court found that the bank had no actual or constructive knowledge of Ms. Dabirinejad's spousal status at the time the charge was registered, rejecting her evidence of a "chance meeting" with a bank employee.

The court concluded that the bank was entitled to rely on Mr. Sharafdin's representations that he was not a spouse and that the charge was valid.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and Ms. Dabirinejad's counterclaim was dismissed.

The applicant sought the release of $2,750,000 from her share of the net proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent brought a cross-motion, agreeing to release $500,000 to the applicant and $100,000 to himself, but sought to impose a condition that a further $2,000,000 be released to the applicant only upon her entering into an agreement to purchase a home in Toronto, citing concerns about her financial management and the children's future housing.

The court found no legal basis to impose such conditions on the applicant's share of property proceeds, distinguishing it from child support cases where such interference is rare and only in exceptional circumstances.

The court granted the applicant's motion for the release of funds without preconditions and denied the respondent's cross-motion.

The respondent successfully brought a motion for disclosure against the applicant.

Following the motion, the parties agreed on costs, but the applicant's counsel failed to finalize the settlement.

The respondent then filed costs submissions, seeking the agreed-upon costs plus additional costs for the applicant's failure to follow through.

The court reviewed the principles of costs in family law, emphasizing indemnification, settlement encouragement, and discouraging inappropriate behavior.

The court found the applicant's conduct regarding disclosure and the costs settlement unreasonable and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs, including an additional amount for the delay caused by the applicant's failure to finalize the settlement.

In a child protection status review proceeding, the court determined whether a four-year-old child should be placed in temporary care and custody with a non-parent third party (the father's ex-girlfriend) or with the Children's Aid Society in foster care.

The father had breached multiple conditions of a supervision order, including being intoxicated while caring for the child.

The court rejected placement with the paternal grandmother due to jurisdictional concerns (she resided in Michigan), rejected placement with the mother due to her unsuitability as a caregiver, and ultimately ordered placement with the ex-girlfriend subject to a supervision order by the society.

The court emphasized the statutory preference for kinship placements over society care and the importance of maintaining the child's connections with significant persons in his life.

The applicant mother sought to relocate with the children from Essex County to Thunder Bay for a new job opportunity, which would significantly improve her financial situation and the children's lives.

The respondent father opposed the move and brought a cross-motion for the children to remain in Essex County.

The court, applying the principles from Gordon v. Goertz and Plumley v. Plumley, found a material change in circumstances due to the mother's job loss.

It determined that the relocation was in the children's best interests, considering the mother's financial stability, the lack of alternative employment, and the proposed access schedule which maintained the father's overnight access.

The applicant's motion was allowed, and the respondent's cross-motion was dismissed.

The parties sought to change child support terms in their separation agreement dated October 30, 2007.

The father sought retroactive support adjustments and ongoing child support from the mother for their son.

The mother sought retroactive support from the father and opposed any obligation to pay child support.

The court conducted a judicial interview with the children to determine living arrangements and found that the son had primarily lived with the father since September 1, 2014, and the daughter had resided in a treatment facility from September 24, 2013 to September 1, 2015.

The court made retroactive adjustments to support effective January 1, 2011, imputed income to the mother, and ordered the mother to pay ongoing child support to the father for the son.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion where Rajeev Singh Chandel was successful in obtaining an order for payment out of funds held in trust.

Alka Singh failed to comply with court directions regarding the submission of costs materials, including page limits and deadlines, and her submissions were significantly overdue and over-length.

The court found Mr. Chandel was entitled to costs under rule 24(1) and rejected Ms. Singh's arguments of misconduct, indigence, or that Mr. Chandel's success was a "technicality." The court awarded Mr. Chandel partial indemnity costs, recognizing the additional work necessitated by Ms. Singh's non-compliance with procedural directions, specifically her excessive motion record.