Family and Matrimonial Law

The applicant husband and respondent wife built a real estate corporate empire during their marriage.

Following their separation, the wife claimed her mother beneficially owned the subject corporations and relied on a 2007 marriage contract to exclude the assets from net family property.

The court found the husband was the beneficial owner of four of the corporations and a 50% owner of the fifth, determining the mother was merely a nominee.

The court also set aside the marriage contract, finding the parties had abandoned it by mutual agreement in 2008.

The wife's post-separation actions to seize control of the corporations were found to be oppressive under the Business Corporations Act.

Parents brought competing motions concerning custody, residence, schooling, counselling, and access for their young child amid high parental conflict following separation.

The court found the father had engaged in conduct harmful to the child, including involving the older sibling in litigation and unilaterally terminating access for several months.

The court ordered that the child receive counselling with a qualified psychologist, authorized the mother to arrange educational and psychological assessments without the father’s consent, and required the parents to share counselling costs.

The father’s request to change the child’s primary residence and school was rejected due to the importance of preserving the status quo pending trial.

Access with the father was reinstated on a structured alternating‑weekend schedule with behavioural conditions.

The respondent brought a motion for interim spousal support in a family law proceeding.

The court considered the parties’ income positions and competing Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines calculations.

The judge found the evidence supported the payor spouse’s annual employment income of approximately $56,000–$58,000 and imputed $7,500 annual income to the recipient spouse.

Considering the length of the relationship, the recipient’s modest financial needs, and her interim occupancy of the matrimonial home, the court ordered interim spousal support of $1,500 per month retroactive to May 25, 2014.

Arrears of $3,000 were to be paid from the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home.

The court determined interim child and spousal support pending trial in a family law proceeding.

The parties’ children resided with the respondent in the matrimonial home while the applicant paid the mortgage, taxes, and insurance after separation.

The court held that these payments, exceeding the Child Support Guidelines amount, satisfied the applicant’s interim child support obligation.

The court also ordered interim spousal support of $1,250 per month, imputing income to the respondent based on her skills and education despite claims of disability.

The interim order was intended to remain in effect until trial, subject to variation if the trial did not proceed as scheduled.

Following a seven‑day family law trial addressing equalization of property, child support, and spousal support, the court determined costs after the parties failed to agree.

The successful party sought substantial indemnity costs, while the respondent argued the decision should await the outcome of his appeal.

The court held that costs must be determined as part of the trial decision notwithstanding a pending appeal.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the principles in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, the court considered the complexity of the issues, counsel’s rates, time spent, and the parties’ conduct.

The respondent’s unreasonable positions and conduct at trial justified a significant costs award.

The applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs plus disbursements totaling $89,595.96.

The father brought a motion seeking sole custody and restricted access for the mother following the parties’ separation and ongoing disputes over parenting time.

The mother brought a cross‑motion seeking sole interim custody and equal parenting time after she unilaterally retained the children.

The court found no clear basis to prefer one parent over the other pending an investigation by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

An interim order for joint custody was granted with equal parenting time on a rotating weekly schedule during the summer.

Issues of child support were adjourned pending further submissions.

The respondent father brought an emergency motion seeking immediate joint custody and a week-about parenting schedule for an 11‑month‑old child.

The applicant mother opposed and sought sole custody with limited evening and weekend access for the father, along with child support.

The court held that the existing status quo, in which the child had primarily resided with the mother since birth, should not be materially altered on an interim basis given unresolved concerns about the father’s substance use and the condition of his residence.

The court ordered the child’s primary residence to remain with the mother while providing structured access for the father and requiring both parties to disclose information regarding substance use and home conditions.

Interim child support was also ordered.

In a family law proceeding concerning enforcement of child support, the court reviewed the payor’s financial circumstances and the status of arrears recorded by the Family Responsibility Office.

Evidence included tax assessments demonstrating a significant decline in the payor’s income and medical documentation indicating physical impairment.

The court noted that child support obligations for the parties’ daughters had previously been terminated in earlier orders.

In the circumstances, the court cancelled the outstanding child support arrears but declined to make any finding that the payor was entitled to reimbursement for alleged overpayments.

Following a family law trial, the court determined whether a father’s parenting time should expand to include overnight access with the parties’ two young children.

The mother opposed expansion citing concerns about the father’s prior mental health issues, unfamiliar living arrangements, and the children’s emotional reactions.

Evidence showed the father had undertaken counselling, improved stress management, and that the Children’s Aid Society had no safety concerns regarding overnight access.

The court found the evidence supported a gradual expansion of parenting time and that the mother’s concerns, while sincere, were largely speculative.

The court held that overnight access was in the children’s best interests and ordered a staged increase in the father’s parenting time including alternate weekend overnights and summer access.

Following a ten‑day family law trial concerning custody and access of two children and an unsuccessful contempt motion, the court addressed costs.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs exceeding $69,000, while the respondent argued success was divided and requested no costs or set‑offs for prior awards and assessment expenses.

Applying the presumption under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules but recognizing the court’s discretion, the court found partial success for both parties but greater success for the applicant.

The court rejected certain claimed costs, required the parties to share the expense of an expert assessment, and considered the potential financial impact of a costs award on the children.

A reduced lump‑sum costs award of $20,000 was ordered payable by the respondent.

The moving party brought a motion to change a 1999 divorce order requiring monthly child support of $762, seeking termination of support effective December 1999 and rescission of accumulated arrears.

The court considered whether a material change in circumstances existed under s. 17 of the Divorce Act and the Child Support Guidelines.

Evidence established that the payor had never earned the income assumed in the original order and had operated a consistently unprofitable business while accumulating significant debt and relying on loans for subsistence.

The court imputed modest income beginning in 2006 and recalculated historical support obligations.

Because the payor had already paid more than what the recalculated guideline amounts required, all arrears were rescinded and prospective support was set based on an imputed income.

In a family law dispute involving a jointly operated cleaning business following marital separation, the applicant sought an order vesting ownership of several business vehicles in her name to permit insurance and continued business operations.

The respondent opposed and brought a cross-motion for contempt based on alleged non-payment of draws and salary under a prior consent order, and sought control of the business.

The court held that contempt was unavailable for enforcement of monetary obligations and found the respondent’s actions had interfered with the business, including cancelling vehicle insurance.

To protect the ongoing viability of the enterprise pending trial, the court vested the vehicles in the applicant subject to conditions on maintenance and disposition.

The respondent’s contempt motion and related requests were dismissed.

Following a settlement conference in a family law proceeding where the parties reached final Minutes of Settlement, the court determined costs relating to the conference.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs due to the respondent’s conduct, alleging rudeness, lack of preparation, and failure to participate constructively in settlement discussions.

The court reviewed the principles governing costs under the Courts of Justice Act and Family Law Rules, including the presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs and the factors relevant to fixing the amount.

While the respondent’s behaviour was criticized, the court noted that the matter ultimately settled and declined to award full indemnity costs.

The respondent was ordered to pay $1,500 in costs for the settlement conference.

Following a spousal support variation proceeding, the court addressed competing claims for costs.

The moving party sought substantial costs relying on an offer to settle under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules, while the responding party sought partial costs based on disclosure delays and litigation conduct.

The court held that the moving party could not rely on the offer to settle because it was not properly signed under Rule 18(4) and the result obtained was not as favourable as the offer.

Considering divided success, disclosure issues, litigation conduct, and the responding party’s financial disadvantage, the court nevertheless awarded the moving party partial costs.

The moving party brought a motion to change prior custody and support orders, seeking to appoint a supervisor for the respondent’s access, vary section 7 expense contributions, increase child support based on updated income, and obtain permission to relocate with the children.

The responding party sought various procedural and disclosure orders and the cancellation of a restraining order.

The court found the moving party’s requests regarding section 7 expenses, child support, and relocation to be reasonable and granted them.

The court rejected the responding party’s requests, finding no evidentiary basis for the relief sought and noting the responding party’s failure to comply with access conditions and previous orders.

Significant trial costs were awarded to the moving party.

The appellant appealed a decision varying a long-standing spousal support order following a motion to change.

The trial judge had reduced ongoing support but significantly increased the monthly repayment of accumulated arrears and declined to impute certain income to the recipient spouse.

On appeal, the court held that a review proceeding does not require proof of a material change in circumstances and found errors in failing to attribute income to the recipient from a retirement investment account and modest rental income from an adult child living in the home.

The court also found the increased arrears repayment schedule was unsustainable relative to the payor’s income.

The support amount and arrears repayment schedule were varied accordingly.

Following a family law summary judgment motion regarding custody and access, the court addressed costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant had obtained summary judgment granting sole custody but the access issue was directed to trial.

The applicant sought approximately $39,773 in costs using a “hybrid full recovery” approach.

The court held that although the applicant was presumptively entitled to costs as the successful party on custody, the amount claimed was excessive for a one‑day motion decided on affidavit evidence.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The applicant sought enforcement of an arbitration award and variation of child and spousal support obligations following separation.

The respondent requested clarification of the arbitration award, enforcement of a prior separation agreement, and arrears of support.

The court upheld the arbitration award and considered additional evidence relating to the parties’ financial circumstances and employment capacity.

The court found the applicant’s unemployment resulted from his own conduct and imputed income to him when determining support.

Lump sum spousal and child support were ordered and set off against the equalization amount owing for the matrimonial home, resulting in no further payments owed by either party.

Following a three-day family trial concerning child support, spousal support, and section 7 extraordinary expenses, the applicant husband sought full indemnity costs of over $83,000 based on several offers to settle under the Family Law Rules.

The court held that the offers contained imprecise and severable cost provisions, preventing a finding that the judgment was more favourable than the offers for purposes of rule 18(14).

Applying rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the applicant was the successful party but declined full indemnity, particularly because significant preparation related to custody, access, and property issues that were settled before trial.

The court fixed reasonable costs for the trial at $15,000 plus HST and disbursements.

The resulting costs award was ordered to be set off against the applicant’s ongoing child support obligations.

A motion was brought in a civil proceeding seeking consolidation with an ongoing family law proceeding involving the breakdown of a long marriage and disputes over ownership of corporate and real property assets.

The civil application, brought through a corporation, sought eviction of occupants from a condominium and recovery of unpaid rent, while the family proceeding raised issues of divorce, equalization, and competing claims to ownership of the corporation and related assets.

The court considered Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principle under s. 138 of the Courts of Justice Act that multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided.

Finding overlapping factual issues concerning ownership of corporate interests and property arising from the marriage, the court held that all disputes should be determined together in the family proceeding.

Consolidation was ordered to avoid abuse of process and to promote efficiency and reduced litigation costs.