Family and Matrimonial Law

This appeal concerned a dispute between a mother and her daughter and son-in-law over beneficial ownership interests in two residential properties.

The trial judge found that the mother beneficially owned one property via a resulting trust and held a 35.6% interest in the second property.

The appellants argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding intentions for the first property and that there was an apprehension of bias due to the immediate oral judgment for the second.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings on resulting trust and property interests, and found no reasonable apprehension of bias, though it noted the immediate oral decision was not best practice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal concerning spousal support.

The husband appealed a Superior Court decision that significantly increased his lump sum spousal support obligation to the wife from an arbitration award.

The Court of Appeal found that both the appeal judge and the arbitrator erred in their application of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAGs).

The appeal judge failed to give deference to the arbitrator's findings and ignored relevant factors, while the arbitrator failed to adequately explain the departure from SSAGs.

The Court of Appeal substituted its own award, increasing the lump sum spousal support to $678,888 (from the arbitrator's $250,000, but less than the appeal judge's $1,893,603) and awarded the wife $100,000 in arbitration costs.

This is a panel review of a single judge's order dismissing a motion to stay a return order for an infant child to Bangladesh, pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal majority granted the review, set aside the stay dismissal, and granted a stay of the return order.

The majority found that the single judge erred in principle by giving insufficient weight to the serious issue of the relationship between the Children's Law Reform Act and pending refugee claims, and by misapplying the irreparable harm and balance of convenience tests, particularly regarding the child's best interests and the potential loss of refugee status.

The dissenting judge argued that the majority conducted a de novo review rather than applying deference to the single judge's discretionary order.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order upholding the validity of a marriage contract and denying relief for alleged physical injury and loss of income.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision to determine the contract's validity on motion, given the appellant's failure to read it and lack of material conflicts in evidence.

The court also upheld the denial of relief for injury, noting no spousal support claim was made and insufficient evidence.

The appellant's request for leave to appeal costs was also dismissed, with the court deferring to the motion judge's discretion on costs, including those for conferences where the appellant was unprepared.

The appellant, Linda May Leith, brought a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a trial judgment concerning an equalization payment under the Family Law Act.

The respondent, Jason William Craig Leith, sought the sale of the testator’s assets as ordered by the trial judge, which Ms. Leith opposed, seeking a stay of sale.

The court granted the extension of time, finding a one-day delay was inadvertent and the appeal raised arguable issues with no prejudice.

The court also granted a stay of the sale of remaining estate assets, finding a serious issue regarding the valuation date for the equalization payment, irreparable harm to the appellant if forced to leave her home, and the balance of convenience favoring the appellant.

Costs were awarded to the appellant.

The moving party husband sought a stay of a lower court order requiring him to produce an updated financial statement, pending the disposition of his appeal.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the husband failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as compliance with the order would not constitute attornment to the court's jurisdiction.

The balance of convenience favoured the wife, given the fundamental obligation for financial disclosure in family law proceedings.

The husband was ordered to comply with the production order and pay costs.

This endorsement concerns a costs award following an urgent motion heard on September 2, 2020.

The applicant, who was the more successful party on the motion, sought costs on a full recovery basis of $25,872.48.

The respondent argued these costs were excessive and proposed $3,000.

The court, applying the Family Law Rules on costs, found the applicant's claimed legal fees to be excessive for a short motion.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $4,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements to the applicant.

In a highly contentious family proceeding, the respondent spouse brought a Form 14B motion seeking dismissal of the applicant spouse’s claims, alternatively compliance with prior court orders or security for costs.

The applicant spouse responded with a competing 14B motion seeking dismissal of the respondent’s motion and a stay of her participation.

The court reviewed the extensive procedural history and determined that neither motion properly fell within the limited procedural scope permitted for Form 14B motions under the Family Law Rules.

Applying appellate authority emphasizing that striking pleadings in family cases is an exceptional remedy, the court declined to dismiss either party’s case.

Both motions were addressed on their merits but no dismissal or security order was granted, and the court imposed case-management restrictions requiring permission before any further motions could be brought.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant moved to strike the respondent’s pleadings due to repeated breaches of court orders, including failures to comply with financial disclosure obligations and past non-payment of support and costs.

In the alternative, the applicant sought security for costs and security for ongoing child and spousal support from proceeds of the respondent’s property held in trust.

The court held that striking pleadings is an exceptional remedy, particularly where custody and access issues involving a child remain unresolved, and declined to strike the respondent’s pleadings at this stage.

Security for costs was also denied because the court could not conclude the respondent’s claims were a waste of time or nuisance under Rule 24(13) of the Family Law Rules.

However, the court ordered continued retention of the sale proceeds in trust, directed that $25,000 be held as security for support, and granted the respondent 45 days to comply with outstanding disclosure obligations.

A father applied for custody of a young child and raised numerous allegations of neglect, abuse, and health concerns regarding the mother’s care.

The court considered extensive evidence, including Office of the Children’s Lawyer reports, a psychiatric assessment suggesting features of schizotypal personality disorder, and repeated unsubstantiated reports made by the father to authorities.

The court found the mother to be the credible and stable primary caregiver and determined the father demonstrated little insight into child development and a persistent inability to support the child’s relationship with the mother.

Given the father’s behaviour and risk of undermining the child’s security and relationship with the mother, the court ordered sole custody to the mother and restricted the father’s access.

Access was limited to supervised visits at a supervised access centre.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to attribute increased income to the respondent for purposes of increasing child and spousal support, alleging that income was being diverted through businesses operated with the respondent’s current spouse.

Evidence indicated the companies shared operations, facilities, and financial arrangements, raising concerns that corporate structures were being used to shield income.

The respondent argued the issue should be determined at trial and that interim attribution would be prejudicial.

The court held that interim orders are appropriate pending trial and found the respondent’s declared income inconsistent with his lifestyle and business arrangements.

The court attributed income of $120,000 and ordered interim child and spousal support increases, and awarded partial indemnity costs for a previous motion.

In a family law proceeding following separation, the applicant brought a motion for contempt alleging the respondent breached court orders prohibiting communication, requiring mortgage payments, and mandating financial disclosure.

The court applied the three-part test for civil contempt and found the respondent deliberately and wilfully breached a non‑communication order by contacting the applicant directly despite clear court orders.

The court also found the respondent in breach of orders requiring mortgage payments and financial disclosure but declined to make additional findings of contempt for those breaches.

The respondent was ordered to attend court to purge his contempt and was directed to comply with outstanding disclosure and mortgage obligations.

The court determined costs following competing family law motions for temporary relief.

The responding party sought various interim orders including increased spousal support, rental income sharing, and enforcement-related relief, while the applicant and additional respondents brought a counter-motion for questioning and an affidavit of documents.

The court found that each side achieved partial success on different issues, including reimbursement of certain s. 7 expenses and a business valuation order in favour of the responding party, while other claims were unsuccessful.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that success was divided and that certain issues should have been resolved without court intervention.

In the circumstances, no order as to costs was appropriate.

The respondent brought a motion in a family law proceeding seeking interim child support, the addition of corporate and individual parties, third-party disclosure, questioning, and other procedural relief.

The court found that the applicant’s financial disclosure was unreliable and that corporate transfers to a family member raised legitimate concerns regarding income and asset concealment.

The court added the applicant’s brother and related corporation as parties and ordered document production and questioning of the brother, as well as limited third‑party disclosure from the applicant’s mother.

For interim purposes, the court imputed income to the applicant and ordered temporary child support based on shared custody.

Requests for interim disbursements and security for costs were dismissed.

The court considered costs following a contentious matrimonial proceeding involving disputes over exclusive possession of the former matrimonial home and parenting time.

Both parties had taken entrenched positions throughout the litigation and had failed to meaningfully pursue mediation or negotiation.

The court found that responsibility for the litigation conduct was shared and that neither party achieved clear success on the principal issues before the court.

Given the divided success and mutual fault, the court declined to award costs to either party.

In a family law motion concerning parenting issues, the applicant sought a s. 30 assessment under the Children’s Law Reform Act and an order permitting questioning of the respondent.

The court approved the assessment and apportioned its anticipated cost of $6,000 according to the parties’ relative incomes, requiring the applicant to pay 80% and the respondent 20%, with any excess payable by the applicant.

The motion for questioning was dismissed because the statutory criteria under the Family Law Rules were not met and the proposed questioning would not advance the determination of the children’s best interests.

The court found the respondent to be the successful party and awarded substantial costs against the applicant after considering settlement offers and litigation conduct.

At a case conference in a family law proceeding, the parties sought directions relating to custody, support, and property issues following marital breakdown.

The matter involved disputes over custody of the child of the marriage, the status of a stepchild as a child of the marriage, spousal support, and the proposed sale of the matrimonial home.

The court addressed significant delay in service of the application and considered the high-conflict environment between the parties while they continued to reside in the same residence.

Orders were made for disclosure, a clinical assessment by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, screening for alcohol dependency, and steps to list and sell the matrimonial home.

The matter was adjourned to a settlement/trial management conference with interim procedural directions.

The moving party sought to vary a prior order requiring payment of child and spousal support, arguing a material change in circumstances due to loss of employment, reduced income, depression, and loss of a driver’s licence.

The court held that the moving party failed to establish a significant and sustained change in circumstances or demonstrate that his reduced income reflected his true earning capacity.

The medical evidence relied upon was inadequate to establish unemployability and did not meet the standards for expert opinion evidence.

The court maintained the previously imputed income under s. 19(1) of the Child Support Guidelines and declined to vary the support order or cancel arrears.

The motion to vary was dismissed, while the Ministry’s assignment of support arrears relating to social assistance payments was confirmed.

Following a proceeding between former spouses, the successful party sought costs.

The court confirmed that the successful applicant was entitled to costs against the respondent.

Rather than fixing the amount, the court directed that the quantum be determined by an Assessment Officer.

The decision addresses entitlement to costs only.

On a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act, the child protection authority sought Crown wardship without access for three young children with significant behavioural and developmental needs.

The parents proposed that the children be returned to the father under a supervision order.

The court reviewed extensive evidence of long‑standing child protection involvement, unstable housing, chronic household disorder, parental conflict, substance use, and the parents’ inability to consistently meet the children’s complex needs despite significant community support.

While acknowledging the father’s commitment and efforts, the court concluded he lacked the capacity, resources, and organization required to safely parent the children long term.

The court determined that permanency through adoption best served the children’s interests and ordered Crown wardship without parental access.