Family and Matrimonial Law

Following a motion regarding spousal support and striking pleadings where success was divided, the parties submitted written submissions on costs.

The applicant sought $10,000, while the respondent sought no costs or $10,000 payable to him.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party and noted the respondent's unreasonable litigation behaviour, including failing to provide disclosure or comply with court orders.

The court awarded the applicant $9,000 in costs.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for non-compliance with court orders and lack of financial disclosure, and sought temporary spousal support.

The court declined to strike the pleadings, noting it is a remedy of last resort, but ordered the respondent to obtain a civil divorce forthwith and cooperate with the applicant's request for a religious divorce (Talaq).

The court imputed income to both parties and ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support of $2,600 per month, retroactive to May 1, 2020, to account for delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The parties engaged in a family arbitration that resulted in an award ordering the respondent to pay $450,000 in lump sum spousal support and $185,000 in costs.

The respondent appealed the award and brought a motion to stay its enforcement pending the appeal, while the applicant moved to dismiss or stay the appeal due to the respondent's failure to pay the award.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the respondent failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, particularly given the arbitrator's findings of egregious financial non-disclosure by the respondent.

The court declined to dismiss the appeal as an abuse of process but ordered that the respondent must comply with the support order by a specified date, failing which the applicant could move to dismiss the appeal.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and permission to relocate with the parties' young child to Arnprior.

The respondent father sought joint custody, increased parenting time, and relief from child support arrears due to his return to school.

The court ordered joint custody, finding the mother had unreasonably restricted the father's access.

The father was granted increased parenting time.

The court imputed income to the father for a period of voluntary unemployment but suspended ongoing child support and section 7 expenses while he remained a full-time student.

The mother's request to relocate with the child was denied as it would disrupt the child's relationship with the father.

The father brought a motion to change a final consent order for child support, which stated it would not be varied 'for any reason whatsoever'.

He argued that the children's circumstances had changed, as one child had finished university and started working, and the other had moved to British Columbia for university.

The court dismissed the motion to change support, finding that these changes were reasonably contemplated at the time the original order was made and therefore did not constitute a material change in circumstances.

The court did grant orders requiring the mother to pay her share of tuition at the beginning of each semester and allowing the father to remove the older child from his life insurance policy.

Following a family law trial regarding the equalization of net family properties, the applicant sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The respondent argued the costs sought were excessive and that certain pre-trial steps should not be included.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle and found the applicant beat her November 2018 offer.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs for the period prior to the offer and full indemnity costs thereafter, fixing the total costs award at $32,732.72.

The applicant mother sought primary residence of the two children pending trial, while the respondent father sought an equal parenting schedule.

The court found the father had engaged in controlling and manipulative behaviour, including pressuring the children regarding equal time and unilaterally depleting home equity.

The court determined it was in the children's best interests to have primary residence with the mother to provide stability, with the father having alternate weekend parenting time.

The court also ordered joint decision-making with the mother having final say in the event of an impasse, and appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The applicant father brought a motion to change an amending agreement to terminate child support for two adult children.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to change the agreement to increase support based on the father's increased income and changes in the children's living arrangements.

The court dismissed the father's request to terminate support, finding that both children remained children of the marriage.

The court ordered the father to pay ongoing child support based on his prior years' incomes, accounting for the children's post-secondary education and living arrangements.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay spousal support of $1,500 per month for a two-year period following a short arranged marriage.

He argued the trial judge erred by considering impermissible evidence regarding the respondent's health and by failing to properly apply the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or misapprehension of evidence, noting the trial judge properly based entitlement on the immigration sponsorship agreement and adequately explained his departure from the Guidelines.

The parties resolved all corollary issues for divorce except primary residence and decision-making responsibilities for their eight-year-old daughter.

The applicant mother sought to move the child's primary residence to Ancaster to live with her new partner, while the respondent father sought to keep the child's primary residence in St. Catharines where she had grown up.

The court ordered joint decision-making, finding the parents had a history of co-parenting despite their conflict.

The court ordered the child's primary residence to remain in St. Catharines with the father, finding that the move to Ancaster would cause significant disruption to the child's life and that the mother's negative behaviour towards the father raised concerns about her ability to facilitate maximum contact.

The moving party brought a motion for contempt against the responding party for failing to list the matrimonial home for sale as required by a 2008 final order.

The responding party had initially listed the home, but after it failed to sell, both parties took no further action for over a decade while the responding party maintained and improved the property.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the responding party had a legitimate excuse and did not deliberately and wilfully breach the order beyond a reasonable doubt given the changed circumstances and mutual inaction.

The applicant brought a motion for interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, where she also operated a home-based business.

She alleged the respondent was violent and disruptive to her practice.

The respondent denied the allegations and claimed a constructive trust interest in the home.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the allegations of post-separation conduct did not rise to the level of violence under section 24(3) of the Family Law Act, and that the applicant's desire to use the home for business could not trump the respondent's right to use it as a residence.

The court determined the costs of an appeal regarding a motion to change custody and access.

The applicant/respondent on appeal sought costs on a full indemnity basis, relying on a written offer to settle.

The respondent/appellant argued against costs, citing delay and partial success.

The court found the applicant was substantially successful but noted the respondent achieved partial success.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $1,280.00.

The respondent mother brought a motion to strike the applicant father's pleadings for failure to disclose, and sought orders restricting his access and communication.

The applicant father brought a cross-motion seeking unsupervised and expanded access to their 15-month-old child.

The court dismissed the motion to strike as disclosure was largely provided.

The court ordered ongoing drug testing for the father, moved access exchanges to a neutral location with strict non-contact rules, and restricted communication between the parties to a journal.

The court granted the father expanded access on a graduated schedule, but ordered that his overnight access remain supervised by paternal family members due to concerns regarding past drug use.

The parties separated in 2011 after a long-term marriage.

The applicant wife sought retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, equalization of net family property, and the continuation of a restraining order.

The court awarded retroactive child support for the period before the eldest child ceased being a child of the marriage.

The court also awarded compensatory spousal support, finding the wife was entitled to share in the husband's post-separation income increase due to the long-term nature of the marriage and her role in raising their special needs children.

The court calculated equalization and post-separation adjustments, resulting in a net payment owed by the wife from her share of the matrimonial home proceeds.

The restraining order was vacated as the circumstances no longer justified it.

The father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' two children to Florida.

The mother had relocated the children to Ontario without the father's consent, breaching their shared parenting agreement.

The mother opposed the return, arguing under Article 13 that returning the children posed a grave risk of harm and that the children objected to returning.

The court found no evidence of grave risk and determined that the children's objections were significantly influenced by the mother and not substantial.

The court ordered the children to be returned to Florida.

The applicant mother sought the return of her four-year-old child to Virginia under the Hague Convention, alleging wrongful retention by the respondent father in Ontario.

The father conceded the retention was technically wrongful but argued the application was brought more than a year after the retention and the child was 'now settled' in Ontario under Article 12.

The court found the child had been living exclusively with the father for over two years in a stable environment, contrasting with the mother's history of substance abuse and child protection involvement.

The court concluded the child was settled in her new environment and dismissed the application for return.

The applicant mother brought a motion for ongoing child support, child support arrears, and section 7 expenses for the parties' five children.

The court ordered ongoing child support based on the respondent father's income and calculated arrears using DivorceMate software.

Regarding section 7 expenses, the court significantly reduced the applicant's claim because she failed to seek the respondent's consent before incurring most of the expenses, limiting his contribution to specific medical and tutoring costs.

The total arrears were ordered to be paid in monthly installments over five years.

Following a family law trial regarding a motion to change support, the successful applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The respondent, who was self-represented and had health issues, caused significant delays and unnecessary prolongation of the trial.

The court found that substantial indemnity costs were justified due to the respondent's conduct, but tempered the award to a mid-way point between partial and substantial indemnity due to her health and financial circumstances.

The applicant was awarded $35,000 in costs.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion to dismiss the father's appeal of a temporary order that varied his access to supervised.

The father did not appear at the motion.

The court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the Notice of Appeal was deficient, there was unexplained delay in perfecting the appeal, the appeal lacked merit given the trial judge's findings, and the appeal was moot because a final order had since been issued in the protection proceeding.