Family and Matrimonial Law

The parties brought cross-motions regarding the matrimonial home, which was solely owned by the applicant and facing foreclosure due to unpaid mortgage arrears.

The respondent sought exclusive possession and a preservation order, while the applicant sought an order for the sale of the home.

The court dismissed the respondent's claim for exclusive possession, finding no compelling evidence that the children's best interests required them to stay or that suitable alternative accommodation was unavailable.

The court ordered the sale of the home, directing that the respondent receive an advance on equalization of up to $400,000 from the proceeds, and issued a limited preservation order preventing the applicant from further encumbering his rental property.

The responding party brought a motion to change a final order to reduce child support in Welland.

The moving party moved to transfer the proceeding to Toronto, arguing that the children reside there and it would be more convenient.

The court found that under Rule 5(1) of the Family Law Rules, the responding party was permitted to start the case in Welland where she resides, as the motion did not deal with custody or access.

The court dismissed the transfer motion, concluding it was not substantially more convenient to deal with the case in Toronto, especially given the shift to virtual hearings and the fact that evidence regarding the responding party's income is located in Welland.

The moving party (respondent mother) brought a motion seeking the recusal of the case management judge from hearing an appeal regarding the vaccination of the parties' children.

The moving party argued that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed based on the judge's prior preliminary rulings in the case, decisions in unrelated family law cases involving public health guidelines, and media coverage of those decisions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the prior decisions were based on existing law and did not demonstrate that the judge had entered the fray or predetermined the issues.

The court also held that a reasonable person would not rely on provocative media articles to conclude the judge could not decide the appeal fairly.

The applicant moved for the partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The respondent opposed the sale, seeking exclusive possession to assess the home's value and potentially purchase the applicant's interest.

The court granted the motion for partition and sale, finding no malicious or oppressive conduct by the applicant and noting the respondent failed to establish a realistic claim for exclusive possession under section 24 of the Family Law Act.

The court ordered the property to be listed for sale and directed the parties to exchange updated financial statements to account for personal property sold post-separation.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to determine whether the parties' three-year-old child should attend junior kindergarten in-person or online.

The mother sought in-person attendance, while the respondent father sought online learning, citing the health risks to his elderly parents who lived with him and had comorbidities.

The court also considered the admissibility of reply evidence, admitting two affidavits but excluding a surreptitious surveillance report.

Applying recent case law on pandemic schooling, the court found that while the father's own conduct regarding Covid-19 protocols was troubling, the risk to his parents' health weighed in favour of remote learning.

The court ordered the child to attend junior kindergarten online.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' four children attend school for in-person learning and that parenting transitions take place at the school.

The respondent father, a medical doctor, opposed in-person learning due to COVID-19 risks and the children's alleged history of respiratory issues.

Applying the Zinati factors, the court found no compelling medical evidence that the children were at increased risk and concluded that the benefits of in-person learning, including structure and peer interaction, outweighed the risks.

The court ordered the children to attend school in-person and requested further submissions on the issue of parenting transitions.

The applicant father brought a motion for a temporary order granting him sole custody of two of his children, alleging parental alienation by the respondent mother.

The court reviewed extensive evidence, including reports from child protection workers, and found that the mother was intentionally engaging in parental alienation strategies to distance the children from their father.

Concluding that the children's expressed resistance to access was scripted and did not reflect their true feelings, the court ordered a temporary reversal of primary residence, granting sole custody to the father with restricted, supervised access for the mother.

Following the death of the respondent, the applicant brought a motion for an accounting and the return of the remaining balance of a $15,000 advance previously ordered to be paid for the respondent's legal costs.

The respondent's counsel brought a cross-motion to be removed as solicitor of record, citing the loss of an instructing client and concerns over solicitor-client confidentiality regarding the accounting.

The court granted both motions, ordering the counsel to provide an accounting with permitted redactions for privilege, return any surplus funds, and removing him as counsel of record.

The applicant mother and respondent father both appealed an arbitration award concerning parenting and financial issues.

The mother appealed the arbitrator's decision requiring her to return with the children from Indiana to Ontario, arguing it failed to prioritize the children's best interests and the maximum contact principle.

The father appealed the arbitrator's decision granting the mother primary care and final decision-making authority upon their return to Ontario.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed both appeals regarding the parenting issues, finding the arbitrator made no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of mixed fact and law.

The court upheld the return to Ontario and the parenting arrangements, while reserving judgment on the financial issues.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking the return of his two children from Nova Scotia to Ontario and joint custody.

The respondent mother had unilaterally moved with the children to Nova Scotia following a physical separation.

The court determined that the children's habitual residence was in Nova Scotia, where they were born, had extended family, and had previously received support services.

The court declined to exercise jurisdiction, finding that the Nova Scotia court, which had already granted an interim ex parte order, was the appropriate forum.

Following a family law trial, the parties were unable to agree on costs, the reconciliation of interim orders, or the release of trust funds.

The court reconciled various advance payments and line of credit withdrawals, crediting them against the respondent's substantial equalization debt.

Due to the respondent's refusal to provide a direction to the real estate lawyer, the court ordered the endorsement to serve as sufficient direction to release the remaining trust funds to the applicant.

Finally, the court awarded the applicant $52,000 in costs, noting the respondent's persistent non-disclosure and obstructionist behaviour.

The applicant brought an urgent motion to amend an existing asset preservation/restraining order to include formal legal descriptions and an additional property, and for declarations that the respondent breached the order and his support obligations.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to vacate or scale back the order.

The court granted the applicant's request to amend the order to include specific properties and declared the respondent in breach of his support obligations.

The court declined to find the respondent in breach of the preservation order as the threatened sale did not materialize.

The respondent's cross-motion was adjourned to a case conference as it had not been triaged for urgency and lacked sufficient evidentiary support.

The applicant mother and respondent father both brought motions regarding interim parenting of their two young children.

The mother sought primary residence with alternate weekend access for the father, while the father sought a shared parenting arrangement.

The court ordered a graduated access schedule for the younger child to eventually synchronize with the older child's schedule, emphasizing the need to accommodate the mother's return to work and the children's best interests.

The court also ordered the father to discharge a property encumbrance as previously agreed.

The Applicant sought costs following a successful motion to dispense with the Respondent's signature on a land transfer and the dismissal of the Respondent's cross-motion to set aside a previous order.

The Applicant had made a Rule 18 offer to settle that mirrored the court's ultimate decision.

The court awarded the Applicant costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer and on a full indemnity basis thereafter, fixing the amount at $9,654.

The respondent wife brought a motion to dismiss the applicant husband's family law application, arguing that China was the more appropriate forum to determine their property and spousal support disputes.

The parties had married in China, obtained a joint divorce certificate there, and owned significant assets in China, though they also owned property and resided part-time in Ontario.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter due to a real and substantial connection, including the husband's claim for a constructive trust over an Ontario property.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding the wife failed to establish that China was a clearly more appropriate forum, particularly given the risk that the husband might be time-barred from pursuing property claims under Chinese law.

The applicant paternal grandmother brought a motion for access to her nine-year-old granddaughter following the death of the child's father.

The respondent mother consented to virtual access for the grandmother but opposed the participation of the child's paternal aunt, citing concerns about being undermined.

Applying the Chapman framework, the court found that the aunt had a positive relationship with the child, the mother's decision to terminate access was arbitrary and stemmed from estate litigation rather than parenting concerns, and the mother's actions imperiled the relationship.

The court granted the motion, allowing the aunt to participate in the virtual access visits.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion to adjourn a peremptory trial date, citing a lack of medical accommodations for her disability and an inability to participate due to COVID-19 restrictions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent had failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to support her requested accommodations beyond those already granted.

Emphasizing the high-conflict nature of the proceedings and the children's pressing need for finality, the court held that further delay was contrary to the children's best interests and the primary objective of the Family Law Rules.

The parties, who share joint custody of their six-year-old child, disagreed on where the child should attend grade one.

The mother proposed a French language school midway between their residences, while the father proposed a French immersion school near his home in Kanata.

The court considered the child's best interests, including the father's disability, transportation logistics, and the parties' respective work schedules.

The court ordered the child to attend the father's proposed school, finding it better accommodated the father's needs and reduced overall travel time, while still meeting the child's linguistic needs.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated while living in Belgrade, Serbia.

The father returned to Ottawa and sought sole custody and an order returning their five-year-old daughter to Canada.

The mother sought sole custody and permission to remain in Belgrade with the child.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding it in the child's best interests to remain in Belgrade where she was settled and where the mother had stable, high-paying employment with the United Nations.

The court imputed income to both parties, finding the father intentionally underemployed, and ordered him to pay child support.

The mother was ordered to pay time-limited spousal support to the father.

The applicant father brought an uncontested motion to change a 2010 divorce order to terminate child support for his twin sons, who had turned 18.

The court ordered the termination of support for one son effective his 18th birthday, as he was no longer in school.

For the other son, who attended college until April 2019, the court terminated support effective May 1, 2019, but rejected the father's request to pay a reduced amount for the months he was in school, ordering the full Table amount instead.