Family and Matrimonial Law

The applicant mother sought permission to relocate with two children (ages 8 and 6) from Toronto to Newcastle, England, where she had remarried.

She also claimed retroactive and prospective child support and section 7 expenses.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and brought cross-claims for custody and access changes.

The court found a material change in circumstances since the prior custody order and permitted the relocation, subject to extensive conditions regarding parenting time and travel arrangements.

The court found the father had engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to pay child support in accordance with his income and ordered retroactive support from April 1, 2017, with prospective support of $708 per month based on his income of $47,000.

The court imposed detailed travel protocols to preserve the father's relationship with the children and allocated travel costs primarily to the mother.

The applicant brought a contempt motion against the respondent for alleged violations of a parenting order issued on July 31, 2017.

The court found the respondent guilty of one instance of contempt for deliberately overholding the child for one week beyond the ordered access period in August 2017.

The court rejected the applicant's allegations of further contempt, finding that the respondent's subsequent conduct either complied with the order or involved ambiguities in the order's interpretation that did not constitute clear violations.

The court imposed a penalty of a $500 charitable donation rather than a monetary fine or imprisonment.

This is a costs decision following a trial on a spousal support claim.

The mother was awarded $1,275 per month in spousal support commencing April 1, 2017.

The mother had served an Offer to Settle seeking $900 per month commencing September 1, 2017, which was more favourable than the trial outcome.

The father failed to accept the offer and did not file responding costs submissions.

The court awarded the mother full recovery of costs from the date of the offer and partial recovery prior to that date, totalling $14,203.30, payable within 45 days.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion on jurisdiction.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought a transfer to another region.

The court granted the applicant's motion and denied the respondent's motion.

Following the decision, the parties consented to a temporary order for access and child support.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis rather than full recovery, considering the absence of unreasonable conduct by the respondent, the lack of an offer to settle, and the respondent's limited financial means.

The respondent father brought a motion for unsupervised overnight access to his two young daughters on alternate weekends and sought to terminate his child support obligation and rescind arrears, claiming his detention and strict bail conditions prevented him from working.

The applicant mother opposed and cross-moved for no access pending receipt of evidence from the Children's Aid Society and the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The mother alleged a pattern of domestic violence, including forcible confinement and assault during a four-day period in June 2017.

The court found the allegations sufficiently concerning and ordered supervised access once weekly for two hours through the Children's Aid Society, pending further evidence.

The court rejected the respondent's request to terminate child support, finding evidence that he owned and controlled a substantial international shipping company with significant income available to him, inconsistent with his claim of minimum wage employment.

The applicant mother sought spousal support from the respondent father in a short marriage that ended following the father's criminal assault on the mother.

The father conceded that some spousal support was owing but disputed the amount.

The father failed to file his evidence in chief as ordered and did not testify at trial.

The court awarded spousal support of $1,275 per month for an indefinite duration, reviewable after December 31, 2021.

The court rejected the father's argument that the mother should be working or that income should be imputed to her, finding her decision to pursue English language education and vocational training reasonable given her circumstances as sole caregiver of two children, one of whom suffered emotional trauma from witnessing the father's assault.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship with no access.

The child had been apprehended at birth and had significant developmental and medical needs, while evidence established that the mother had severe cognitive limitations and limited support resources.

Applying Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the society had established a prima facie case that the child was in need of protection.

The court further found that less intrusive alternatives were inadequate and that permanence was urgently required given the child’s needs.

The statutory presumption against access to Crown wards was not rebutted because there was insufficient evidence that access would be beneficial and meaningful to the child or would not impair adoption prospects.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent successfully brought a motion against three non-party corporations seeking financial disclosure required by a business valuator to determine the applicant’s income.

After the motion succeeded and disclosure was ordered subject to a confidentiality agreement, the parties returned to court to resolve disputes over the confidentiality terms and costs.

Both sides sought substantial indemnity costs and relied on offers to settle under Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that neither party met the burden of proving that the result was as favourable as their respective offers and therefore assessed costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Applying the factors in Rule 24 and considering the respondent’s substantial success on the disclosure motion, the court ordered the non-parties to pay costs.

Mid-trial evidentiary ruling in a family law custody and access dispute concerning the admissibility of a custody and access assessment prepared in a prior proceeding between the same parties.

The respondent argued the report was inadmissible under s. 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court held that although the report could not be admitted automatically under s. 30(9), that provision does not displace the general law of evidence.

The assessor was not prohibited from testifying and may provide factual or opinion evidence if common law expert evidence requirements are met.

However, the report itself was ordered removed from the trial record and may only be tendered when the witness testifies.

The applicant sought temporary spousal support following a long-term marriage and the sale of the parties’ shared corporate interests in a real estate development business.

The respondent argued that support should not be ordered due to the applicant’s capital assets, alleged cohabitation with a wealthy partner, and claims that the corporate buyout constituted advance income that would create double recovery.

The court found that the parties were not in equal financial positions post-separation and rejected the argument that the applicant should rely on her partner or exhaust capital.

Pending trial and despite incomplete financial disclosure, the court fixed temporary incomes and applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines to determine interim support.

Temporary spousal support of $10,000 per month was ordered retroactive to September 2013, with earlier retroactive support left for determination at trial.

The court considered whether to confirm or vary a provisional interprovincial support order under s. 19(7) of the Divorce Act.

The moving party had failed to disclose income as required by an earlier order and had stopped paying child support and maintaining life insurance.

The court determined the proper historical incomes of both parties and recalculated guideline child support and section 7 expenses retroactively to 2009, allocating expenses proportionally to income and accounting for the child’s own earnings.

Arrears were calculated for unpaid child support, unpaid section 7 contributions, and insurance premiums.

The provisional order was varied and the moving party was ordered to pay substantial arrears and ongoing support.

A former spouse brought a motion seeking interim and permanent spousal support more than two decades after separation and many years after divorce.

The applicant was disabled, dependent on social assistance, and unable to work, while the respondent was retired with modest pension income and had reorganized his finances following remarriage.

The court held that delay in pursuing support does not bar relief under the Divorce Act, but extreme and unexplained delay may significantly affect entitlement and quantum.

Although the applicant established need and entitlement due to disability following a long marriage, the court found the delay unreasonable and reduced support substantially below the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Interim spousal support of $300 per month was ordered with no retroactivity and no indexation.

The responding party brought a motion to change seeking variation of an access order providing that parenting time occur as agreed between the parties.

The other party sought termination of access, alleging persistent harassment, alcohol abuse, threats, and behaviour undermining the children’s stability and well-being.

Evidence included an Office of the Children’s Lawyer report concluding that the moving party had failed to achieve stability and that defined access would be ill-advised absent substantial progress.

Applying the Children’s Law Reform Act and the material change framework from Gordon v. Goertz, the court found a material change in circumstances and determined that the children’s best interests required termination of access.

The moving party’s motion was dismissed and access was terminated.

A former spouse sought determination of the continuing obligation for spousal support following a consent order that suspended support if the recipient cohabited with another person for one year and terminated it after three years.

The court determined the recipient began cohabiting with a new partner in May 2008, resulting in suspension of support after one year during that relationship, but found insufficient evidence that a later romantic partner constituted cohabitation.

The payor’s income had subsequently declined due to disability, raising the issue of variation under s. 17 of the Divorce Act.

The court held the recipient remained economically disadvantaged from a long marriage and was not proven capable of self‑sufficiency despite limited medical documentation.

Support was therefore varied downward to reflect the payor’s reduced income, with limited retrospective suspension during the earlier cohabitation period.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding involving custody of two children, the court addressed a request for costs arising from a motion to adjourn the scheduled trial.

The Office of the Children’s Lawyer sought an eight‑month adjournment shortly before trial due to scheduling conflicts and illness of the clinical investigator, which the father opposed.

The court ultimately granted a shorter adjournment to an earlier date than requested.

Applying rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the objectives of costs awards, the court found the result represented divided success and noted concerns about the lack of detail provided to justify the adjournment request.

Exercising its discretion, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs of the motion.

Following a contested family law motion concerning access and temporary child support, both parties sought costs.

The court considered the presumption under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules that costs follow the event and evaluated which party achieved substantial success.

The respondent on the underlying motion was found to have achieved success on the primary issues, including the amount of temporary child support and the terms of supervised access.

Although unsuccessful on several minor issues, those matters were considered insignificant relative to the central disputes.

The court therefore awarded the successful party partial indemnity costs of $4,500, rejecting a claim for full indemnity costs as excessive and unsupported.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside an order validating service of a divorce application outside Canada and the resulting final divorce order.

The court considered whether the orders could be set aside under rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules on the basis of fraud, mistake, or absence of notice.

The court found that the applicant failed to disclose material facts when seeking validation of service, including knowledge of the respondent’s residential address in Ontario and information regarding her expected return to Canada.

This material non‑disclosure occurred in the context of a motion brought without notice and constituted fraud on the court process.

As a result, the order validating service and the final divorce order were both set aside.

The respondents brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of a grandmother’s application for access to her grandchildren under s. 21(1) of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The court considered the best interests of the children under s. 24 of the Act, including the nature of the historical relationship between the grandmother and the children, the present circumstances of the family, and the status quo after several years without contact.

Even accepting the applicant’s characterization of the prior relationship, the court found it to be an ordinary grandparent relationship and not one warranting court‑ordered access.

Given the intense conflict between the adults and the children’s stable and thriving circumstances, ordering access would place the children in the middle of ongoing hostility.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary judgment dismissing the application.

The moving party sought to rescind child support arrears and terminate ongoing support after spending five years incarcerated with no income.

The court considered the variation provisions of s. 17 of the Divorce Act and the Child Support Guidelines, including the principles governing rescission of arrears and imputing income.

It held that the payor had no present or past capacity to pay during incarceration and that imputing income during that period would be irrational.

The court also found that a possible future residential school settlement did not constitute future capacity to pay arrears that accrued when the payor had no income.

The arrears were rescinded and ongoing support was varied to zero, subject to future variation if circumstances change.

The Children's Aid Society and Ontario Children's Lawyer brought a motion to dispense with service on the respondent father in a child protection application.

The father was subject to a non-association order and had been convicted of assaulting the subject child.

The court rejected the motion, finding no jurisdiction under the Child and Family Services Act, Family Law Rules, or common law to dispense with service on a parent.

The court held that fundamental principles of natural justice and section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms require that a parent receive notice and an opportunity to be heard in child protection proceedings.