Family and Matrimonial Law

The 94-year-old applicant, former spouse of the deceased, sought dependant support from his estate under the Succession Law Reform Act.

Despite a 1994 divorce judgment and minutes of settlement containing a full release, the deceased had been paying the applicant monthly spousal support until his death.

The court found it had jurisdiction to order support under s. 63(4) of the SLRA.

Concluding that the deceased failed to make adequate provision for the applicant and owed her a moral duty, the court ordered the estate to pay $3,400 per month in support for the remainder of her life.

The applicant and respondent separated in 2012.

The central issue at trial was determining the respondent's income for child and spousal support purposes from 2017 onwards, given his self-employment as a farmer.

The court accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the respondent's income should be adjusted to reflect actual depreciation of farm equipment rather than the Capital Cost Allowance permitted for tax purposes.

The court also imputed income for personal benefits derived from the farming operation, including rent-free housing, vehicle use, and farm produce.

The court ordered support to be calculated based on these adjusted income figures, averaging the income for future years due to the fluctuating nature of farm income.

The parties disputed the value of their matrimonial home as of the valuation date.

The applicant's expert appraised the home at $260,000 using local comparables, while the respondent's expert appraised it at $414,000 using comparables from a wider geographic area and making adjustments.

The court preferred the methodology of the respondent's expert but applied a 20 percent discount to the adjustments to account for the subjectivity of appraisals, ultimately valuing the home at $392,000.

The applicant father and respondent mother brought urgent motions regarding parenting time, school enrollment, and interim support following their separation.

The court ordered an interim interim parenting schedule of four days with the father and three days with the mother during the school year, and week-about during the summer.

The child was ordered to attend public school in the father's catchment area for the remainder of the school year.

As a condition of adjourning the motions, the mother was ordered to pay $5,000 in four installments, to be credited towards any future support orders.

Following motions by both parties regarding refusals and questions taken under advisement during questioning, the Estate Trustee was largely successful.

Both parties sought costs of the motions.

The court determined the Estate Trustee's entitlement to costs as the successful party and fixed the quantum on a partial indemnity basis at $25,200, plus $500 for a prior appointment, payable by the applicant.

The parties returned to court to address temporary parenting arrangements and the appointment of a section 30 assessor.

The father and paternal grandparents sought expanded, in-person parenting time during the summer, while the mother opposed in-person visits and requested that the assessment be conducted entirely virtually.

The court found that virtual visits had been positive and ordered the mother to travel to Ottawa with the children for the summer to facilitate graduated in-person visits.

The court also appointed the father's proposed assessor, requiring in-person observation visits due to the complex family dynamics and allegations of domestic violence.

Following the release of reasons for judgment in a family law application, the respondent brought a motion under Rule 25(19) seeking to dismiss the application or order a new trial due to factual errors in the judgment.

The court acknowledged a minor factual error regarding the source of a down payment but found it did not alter the conclusion that there was a joint family venture and unjust enrichment.

The court also clarified the calculation of the applicant's 35% interest in the accumulated properties.

The respondent's motion was dismissed, as the remaining issues were either previously addressed or relied on new evidence that could have been adduced at trial.

The applicant wife brought a motion to strike the respondent husband's pleadings due to his repeated failure to comply with multiple court orders for financial disclosure.

Despite four disclosure orders over three and a half years, the respondent failed to produce significant financial documents necessary to determine child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court applied the three-pronged test for striking pleadings and found that the respondent's willful non-compliance was egregious.

The court granted the motion, struck the respondent's pleadings, and ordered the matter to proceed to an uncontested trial.

In a family law proceeding, the court ordered both the applicant and the respondent to provide updated financial disclosure regarding their respective properties.

The parties were directed to exchange mortgage and line of credit statements, MPAC assessments, and details of any rental income received since December 2017.

Further submissions on the net equity of the properties were scheduled to follow the disclosure.

The applicant, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, received notice of relocation to Manitoba and sought an urgent case conference after the respondent refused to consent to the child's relocation.

The court reviewed the recent relocation amendments to the Children's Law Reform Act, noting the applicant appeared to have complied with the notice requirements.

The court granted the request for an urgent case conference to allow the parties to receive judicial input on the new relocation protocol and ordered the respondent to formally notify the applicant of his objection.

The applicant mother brought an application for divorce, sole decision-making responsibility, child support, and property division.

The respondent father failed to file an Answer and the matter proceeded as an uncontested trial.

The court granted the divorce, awarded the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, and limited the father's parenting time to supervised virtual contact due to pending criminal charges for domestic violence.

The court also ordered an equalization payment of $22,985 for RRSPs, imputed the father's income at minimum wage for child support purposes, and issued a restraining order against the father.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place two children in extended society care, with a minimum of three face-to-face access visits per year for the parents.

The parents consented to the extended society care order but the father sought more frequent access.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, finding no genuine issue for trial, and ordered extended society care with a minimum of three face-to-face visits per year for both parents, balancing the children's need for stability with their desire to maintain contact with their parents.

The applicant sought an order for exclusive possession of a property solely owned by him, where his former common-law partner and their children resided.

A previous order allowed the respondent to remain if she assumed responsibility for a collateral mortgage and brought a spousal support motion.

The respondent failed to meet these conditions and sought to set them aside under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion to set aside the conditions, finding no fraud or mistake, and granted the applicant exclusive possession, ordering the respondent to vacate within 60 days.

The court heard three motions in related civil and family law actions to determine the distribution of $100,000 held by the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice.

The funds were the remaining net sale proceeds of a property previously owned by the respondent.

The parties disputed the interpretation of the family law Minutes of Settlement regarding the calculation of the applicant's 50% share, specifically concerning add-backs for legal fees and whether the respondent could deduct his civil litigation legal fees.

The court found that only the legal fees attributable to the family law file should be added back and that the respondent was not entitled to deduct his civil litigation fees from the amount subject to division.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a temporary parenting order to increase his parenting time with the parties' child, who has Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The court found no material change in circumstances but determined the original order was time-limited, allowing for a review.

Applying the maximum contact principle, the court partially granted the motion, expanding the father's summer parenting time to four non-consecutive weeks and extending his alternate weekend parenting time to Monday mornings, while denying his request for additional mid-week overnights.

Following the settlement of a child protection proceeding, the respondent mother sought costs of $352,066.02 from the respondent father.

The mother argued the father acted unreasonably, necessitating an urgent motion mid-trial to enforce a parenting order after he failed to return the children.

The court noted that while costs are rarely awarded between parents in child protection matters, the father's breach of the court order justified a costs award for the urgent motion.

The court awarded the mother $15,000 in costs for the motion but declined to award costs for the entire proceeding, as the trial was not completed and there was insufficient evidence of bad faith to justify full costs.

The applicant previously obtained an urgent, ex parte temporary parenting order against the respondent, with a return date set for an open motions list.

When the respondent attempted to file a counter-motion, the court registry refused to accept it on the basis that the open list motion was already scheduled for the maximum one hour.

The court intervened, holding that it would be contrary to natural justice and procedural fairness to prevent the respondent from filing a counter-motion after an ex parte order had been made against him.

The court directed that the counter-motion be accepted and set strict time limits for both parties to make their submissions within the allotted one hour.

The applicant brought a motion seeking orders to file Trial Scheduling Endorsement Forms (TSEF), secure life insurance benefits, and for leave to bring a motion for interim spousal support despite a settlement conference having already occurred.

The court granted the consent orders regarding the TSEF and life insurance.

However, the court denied leave for the interim spousal support motion, finding that the applicant failed to adequately explain the significant delay in bringing the claim and noting that the matter should proceed directly to trial.

The father brought a motion to change a final consent order, seeking to wipe out child support arrears and reduce ongoing child support due to a mental breakdown that placed him on unpaid sick leave, and a planned return to Nigeria.

The court found the unpaid sick leave constituted a material change in circumstances, but the planned return to Nigeria did not.

The court allowed a retroactive reduction in child support effective October 1, 2020, citing the father's delay in bringing the motion and lack of effective notice.

The court deferred the determination of the father's imputed income, ordering both parties to file brief affidavits on the issue.

The applicant brought a motion to change a final order to include retroactive child support, arguing the respondent failed to disclose a $29,908 debt registered as a lien on the matrimonial home.

The original settlement had offset child support arrears against the applicant's equalization payment for the home.

The respondent failed to appear at the hearing.

The court found the undisclosed debt constituted a change in circumstances under the Divorce Act, as the applicant would not have agreed to the offset had she known of the lien.

The court varied the order, requiring the respondent to pay $34,454 in child support arrears and $15,000 in costs, and dismissed the respondent's cross-motion.