Family and Matrimonial Law

The mother brought a motion to change seeking ongoing child support for the parties' two teenage children.

The father argued he was unable to work because he was caring for his 27-year-old adult son from another relationship who was in crisis.

The court found the father was intentionally unemployed, as he failed to demonstrate that his adult son required 24-hour care that prevented him from working at least part-time.

The court imputed a part-time income of $15,000 to the father and ordered him to pay $250 per month in ongoing support and arrears.

The court also dismissed the father's claim that the Family Responsibility Office failed to properly account for wage garnishments and tax refunds.

The applicant brought a motion for further financial disclosure from the respondent and his mother, a non-party, in a family law proceeding.

The applicant alleged the respondent transferred over $1.5 million to his mother to defeat her claims for support and equalization.

The court found the respondent's financial disclosure was deficient and ordered him to produce extensive personal and corporate banking records.

The court also ordered the respondent's mother to produce her personal bank statements, finding her privacy interests were outweighed by the unexplained transfer of family property.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change seeking sole decision-making and a week-about parenting schedule.

The respondent father sought sole decision-making, reduced parenting time for the mother, child support adjustments, a restraining order, and a declaration that the mother is a vexatious litigant.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the mother's escalating confrontational behavior, failure to follow court orders, and inappropriate social media posts.

The court awarded sole decision-making to the father, reduced the mother's parenting time to every second weekend, imputed income to the mother for child support purposes, granted a restraining order, and declared the mother a vexatious litigant.

The court held a case management conference to address multiple ongoing and acrimonious actions between the parties following a Court of Appeal decision that found the respondent's appeal of an undefended trial decision to be an abuse of process.

The court provided directions and timetables for determining the scope of the remaining 'seminal' action, deferred a related action for recovery of funds, and ordered the dismissal of an action regarding a false criminal complaint.

The court also addressed the status of various other related actions, including claims against former counsel, and set schedules for future case management conferences and motion hearings.

The father brought a motion to change a 2014 final order to seek joint decision-making and equal parenting time for the parties' two children.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking to maintain her sole decision-making authority and the father's alternate weekend parenting time.

The court found that the mother had unjustifiably marginalized the father's role in the children's lives and failed to communicate important information regarding their health and education.

While the court declined to order joint decision-making due to the high level of conflict, it ordered that the mother retain sole decision-making subject to a robust duty to consult the father.

The court also granted the father's request for equal parenting time on a 2-2-3 rotating schedule, finding it in the children's best interests to maximize their time with him.

The Society sought an order for extended society care with no access for two young children.

The mother sought the return of the children to her care subject to supervision.

The court found the children in need of protection due to historical housing instability and conflict, but noted the mother had made significant progress, secured stable housing, and improved her parenting skills.

The court heavily criticized the Society for failing to expand the mother's access and for unreasonably opposing a temporary court order for overnight visits.

Concluding that the protection concerns could be mitigated by terms of supervision, the court dismissed the Society's application for extended care and ordered the children returned to the mother under a 9-month supervision order.

The applicant mother sought to relocate with the parties' three-year-old daughter to Ireland, arguing she needed to return to her home country to practice optometry and escape the respondent father's alleged coercive control.

The father opposed the relocation.

The court dismissed the relocation application, finding the mother's allegations of abuse lacked credibility and her economic rationale was flawed, as she could upgrade her degree in Canada.

Instead of permitting relocation, the court ordered the father to pay compensatory spousal support to fund the mother's professional requalification in Ontario, and ordered joint decision-making for the child.

The parties brought a motion to change a 2019 consent order that provided for shared decision-making and equal parenting time.

The mother initially sought to formalize a week-on/week-off schedule, but amended her motion to seek primary residence and sole decision-making after the father unilaterally relocated to Smith Falls, an hour away from the child's school in Ottawa.

The father also sought primary residence and sole decision-making.

The court found the father's relocation constituted a material change in circumstances.

Applying the best interests of the child factors, the court ordered that the child reside primarily with the mother to avoid a lengthy daily commute and maintain stability.

The court ordered shared decision-making responsibility, but granted the mother final decision-making authority in the event of an impasse.

The applicant brought a motion for exclusive possession of the jointly-owned matrimonial home and an interim restraining order against the respondent.

The respondent had recently returned to the home from the UK and engaged in intimidating and verbally abusive behaviour towards the applicant and their adult children.

The court found that the applicant and children had reasonable grounds to fear for their psychological and physical safety.

The motion for a restraining order and exclusive possession was granted.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' one-year-old child to New York State.

The respondent mother had removed the child to Ontario without the father's knowledge or consent.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was New York State and that the father was exercising his custody rights at the time of removal.

The mother opposed the return, alleging domestic violence and substance abuse by the father, arguing that returning the child would pose a grave risk of harm under Article 13(b).

The court held that the mother failed to meet the high threshold required to establish a grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation.

The application was granted, and the child was ordered to be returned to New York State, subject to certain undertakings by the father.

The applicant brought a motion seeking further financial disclosure from the respondent, specifically bank statements and cancelled cheques, in the context of a motion to change child support.

The applicant argued the disclosure was necessary to ascertain the respondent's true income, noting discrepancies between his hourly rate and reported income.

The court dismissed the motion for bank statements, finding the request disproportionate and akin to a fishing expedition, as the respondent was a unionized T4 employee with reasonable explanations for income fluctuations.

However, the court ordered the respondent to produce a more detailed employment letter.

The applicant moved for a penalty after the respondent was found in contempt for failing to obey parenting and costs orders.

The respondent had denied the applicant parenting time with their 6-year-old son for over three years.

The court ordered immediate unsupervised parenting time for the applicant, temporarily changed the child's primary residence to the applicant, authorized police enforcement, and ordered the respondent to pay $11,900 in full indemnity costs.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a motion where the respondent sought to introduce issues regarding a joint venture, a mortgage renewal, and the distribution of trust funds.

The applicant was successful in opposing the joint venture issue, while the respondent was successful on the mortgage renewal issue.

The court found that both parties had taken unreasonable positions on the issues they lost.

Given the divided success, the court declined to award costs to either party and cautioned them against taking unreasonable positions that hinder the resolution of the family law dispute.

Following a trial on the equalization of net family property, the parties were unable to agree on the final equalization payment and costs.

The court determined that the applicant owed the respondent an equalization payment of $639,398, rejecting her argument regarding a bank account balance based on an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The court found the respondent was the more successful party but noted both parties behaved unreasonably during the litigation.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $45,000 in costs.

The parties brought competing motions in a high-conflict family law proceeding.

Both parties filed voluminous materials that failed to comply with the prevailing Notice to the Profession regarding page limits.

The court narrowed the issues to three urgent matters: the release of funds held in trust from the sale of the matrimonial home, the reinstatement of a parenting coach, and the enrollment of the children in therapy.

The court ordered a partial release of funds with a $150,000 holdback to protect equalization claims, reinstated the parenting coach, and permitted the applicant to enroll the children in therapy.

No costs were awarded due to both parties' non-compliance with the Rules.

Following a twelve-day trial on a motion to change regarding parenting and relocation, the successful party sought costs of $91,098.07.

The opposing party argued for each party to bear their own costs due to divided success and financial hardship.

The court found the moving party was clearly successful and entitled to costs, but declined to award full indemnity costs as the judgment was not more favourable than the offer to settle on all issues.

The court awarded costs of $45,000, applying reductions for the unnecessary use of second counsel and the opposing party's dire financial circumstances.

The applicant brought a motion for various family law relief, including retroactive and ongoing child support, section 7 expenses, and carrying costs for jointly owned properties.

The court determined the appropriate quantum of ancillary post-secondary education expenses to be included under section 7, finding that the adult child should contribute one-third of these expenses.

The court also addressed the respondent's claim for a credit towards carrying costs and apportioned costs for the motion and subsequent case conferences based on divided success and the parties' conduct.

The parties separated after a seven-year marriage.

The father sought joint decision-making and shared parenting time, while the mother sought sole decision-making and reduced parenting time for the father.

The court awarded joint decision-making, finding the mother could not be trusted with sole authority due to her history of restricting the father's access.

The child's primary residence remained with the mother.

The court imputed the self-employed father's income at $82,500 for child support purposes, rejecting his declared income due to unsubstantiated business deductions.

The father was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $146,104.18.

The mother was found entitled to non-compensatory spousal support, but no amount was awarded as priority was given to child support.

The applicant father brought a motion to change child support, seeking a retroactive adjustment to 2017 based on the offset method in the parties' separation agreement.

Both parties sought to impute income to the other, alleging underemployment and questioning rental income deductions.

The court declined to impute income to either party, finding their employment choices and periods of unemployment legitimate.

The court ordered a retroactive adjustment of child support based on the parties' actual declared incomes for each year, resulting in arrears owed by the respondent mother.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking equal parenting time.

The parties had previously signed temporary minutes of settlement for parenting time, which included a review clause for an upcoming case conference.

The respondent mother argued the father must show a material change in circumstances to vary the temporary order.

The court held that no material change was required because the temporary order was intended to bridge the gap until the case conference, and the father only brought the initial urgent motion because the mother had denied him parenting time.

The court granted the father's request for extended parenting time, finding that overnight stays instead of evening drop-offs were in the children's best interests.