Family and Matrimonial Law

An appeal and cross-appeal concerning a family law matter involving a teenager who left his adoptive parents' home to live with the parents of his girlfriend.

The original applicants (the girlfriend's parents) sought decision-making authority and child support from the adoptive parents.

The lower court found the applicants lacked standing as "parents" under the Family Law Act but appointed them as litigation guardians without compliance with procedural requirements.

The appellate court upheld the finding of no standing but found the appointment of litigation guardians was made without jurisdiction, as the applicants had not complied with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the application and set aside the litigation guardian appointment, while permitting the now-adult child to pursue retroactive support independently.

The applicant purchased a property in 2018 with title held 99% in his name and 1% in the names of the respondents (the parents of his fiancée).

The applicant paid the entire down payment of $430,000 and deposit of $20,000.

The respondents co-signed the mortgage and paid the monthly mortgage payments, while the applicant paid property taxes, utilities, and insurance.

After the relationship between the applicant and the respondent's daughter ended in 2020, the property was sold in 2022.

The respondents claimed either an agreement existed for a 50/50 split of proceeds or that unjust enrichment applied.

The court found no agreement existed and that unjust enrichment did not apply, ordering the proceeds to be distributed according to title (99% to the applicant, 1% to the respondents).

This decision addresses the division of property, child support, and spousal support following the breakdown of an 18-year marriage between parties who immigrated from Iran to Canada.

The main issue was the treatment of the Mehr (a marriage contract requiring payment of 800 gold coins), its enforceability, and its impact on equalization of net family property.

The court found the Mehr was not paid, ordered an unequal division of property in the husband's favour due to unconscionability, and dismissed the husband's claim for spousal support.

The court also set out child support obligations and addressed credibility issues with both parties.

The applicant father brought a motion for the return of the four-year-old child from Alberta to Ontario, following the respondent mother's unilateral relocation and breach of a prior undertaking to return the child to Ontario.

The court had previously confirmed jurisdiction in Ontario.

The mother's evidence regarding the child's safety and a new status quo was found to be contradictory and insufficient, as her actions constituted extreme self-help remedies.

The court emphasized that self-help would not be rewarded and that the child's best interests, including maintaining a relationship with both parents, necessitated the child's return to Ontario.

The motion for the child's return was granted, with specific orders for transfer of care and future parenting arrangements.

This is a costs endorsement following an undefended trial in a family law matter.

The Applicant sought full recovery costs, arguing the Respondent's conduct amounted to bad faith, including evading service, failing to provide financial disclosure, and engaging in disturbing and malicious behaviour.

The Respondent contended his conduct did not reach the level of bad faith and that he was partially successful at trial.

The court found the Respondent's protracted and egregious conduct, including a "catch-me-if-you-can" approach to financial disclosure and malicious actions, met the test for bad faith, warranting an award of full recovery costs to the Applicant.

The court dismissed the Respondent's arguments regarding partial success and the Applicant's offers to settle.

This is a costs endorsement following a temporary child and spousal support motion.

The applicant sought costs of $7,067.02 after obtaining a more favourable result than her settlement offer.

The respondent acted in bad faith by deliberately avoiding financial disclosure, unduly delaying proceedings, stopping support payments despite ability to pay, and misrepresenting his income.

The court found the respondent's offer to settle was more favourable than the motion result, triggering full recovery costs consequences.

The court also found bad faith conduct warranting full recovery costs under the Family Law Rules.

The respondent's costs were fixed at $7,067.02, payable immediately.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion seeking temporary sole custody of the parties' young son and a restricted access schedule for the applicant father.

The father sought to restore the pre-motion shared parenting arrangement on a 2-2-3 basis.

The court found that the mother was the primary caregiver prior to separation and that the father's conduct, including leaving the child unattended in a car and on a doorstep, demonstrated serious lapses in judgment.

The court granted the mother temporary sole custody with final decision-making authority on major issues, while providing the father with significant parenting time.

The court also imposed a condition that the father not leave the child alone while in his care.

The court rendered a costs endorsement following a six-day trial in a family law matter.

The Applicant sought substantial costs, arguing she was largely successful on major issues such as imputed income and support.

The Respondent argued for each party to bear their own costs, claiming neither party's offer to settle was more favourable.

The court found the Applicant to be the more successful party on the major issues, particularly regarding imputed income and retroactive support, and awarded the Applicant $15,000 in costs, considering the complexity of issues, parties' behaviour, and expert fees.

A costs decision following a trial judgment on a restraining order application.

The applicant mother sought costs of $11,734 on a full recovery basis after successfully obtaining a restraining order against the respondent father, though her request for a restraining order protecting her teenaged daughter was denied.

The respondent father argued costs should be limited to $750-$1,000.

The court awarded costs of $5,815.66, rejecting the mother's reliance on outdated case law regarding full recovery of costs and applying the proportionality and reasonableness principles established in Beaver v. Hill.

The court disallowed 10.3 hours of pre-trial work and allowed 17 hours of trial-related work at the counsel's reasonable hourly rate of $375.

The applicants (maternal grandparents) brought a motion requesting an order pursuant to sections 89 and 112 of the Courts of Justice Act that the Office of the Children's Lawyer be requested to investigate the circumstances of claims for custody and/or access to the child.

The respondents (biological parents) opposed the motion.

The court granted the motion, finding that the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer would be helpful in determining the child's best interests given the complex factual disputes, the child's age and ability to express herself, and the child protection overtones in the case.

The applicant and respondent brought cross-motions concerning the respondent's unilateral relocation with the children from Eganville to Ottawa.

The court considered the children's best interests, applying principles from mobility cases.

It found that the respondent had not demonstrated a valid and compelling parent-based reason for the move and that remaining in Eganville offered identifiable benefits for the children, including easier contact with their father and paternal grandparents, and stability for the older child.

The court ordered the respondent to re-establish residency near Eganville within 60 days, failing which the children would reside with the applicant.

A shared parenting regime was ordered upon the respondent's return.

The applicant moved to enforce an access review provision in a separation agreement, seeking to increase his overnight access to the child.

The respondent opposed and brought a cross-motion for dismissal, transfer of the file to Brampton, and a section 30 assessment.

The court granted the applicant's request for increased access, finding that the "review" test, not "material change," applied and that the increase was in the child's best interests.

The court also granted the respondent's request for a section 30 assessment but adjourned the file transfer request.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

This case involved a multi-day trial addressing several family law issues following the parties' separation in 2008.

The applicant sought ongoing and retroactive child support, s. 7 expenses, an equalization payment based on the respondent's pension, a trust interest in a property, and pre-trial costs.

The court dismissed the applicant's claims for a trust interest, pre-June 2013 costs, and pension equalization, primarily due to the respondent's parents not being parties to the trust claim, prior cost orders, and the applicant's bankruptcy affecting the equalization claim.

The court awarded retroactive child support from December 2011, calculated based on the respondent's varied income, including RRSP withdrawals and imputed farming income.

Ongoing child support and contributions to s. 7 expenses were also ordered, with an offset calculation applied after one child's custody changed.

This costs endorsement followed a ten-day trial concerning custody, parenting time, and decision-making for a child.

The father (respondent) was largely successful at trial, achieving equal parenting time and final decision-making on health matters, which matched or exceeded his offers to settle.

The mother (applicant) had sought sole custody and reduced parenting time for the father, and her offers were not matched.

The court found the father's conduct reasonable and the mother's position unreasonable.

Consequently, the court awarded the father full recovery costs from the date of his first offer and partial recovery for the period prior, totaling $53,037.63.

The respondent, Mr. LeBlanc, brought a motion to change a final order for spousal support, seeking a reduction from $1,500 to $400 per month, or zero, effective retroactively.

The original order by Koke J. imputed an income of $80,000-$90,000 to Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. LeBlanc argued a material change in circumstances due to financial hardship and the failure of a construction contract.

The applicant, Ms. Brothers, opposed the change, alleging Mr. LeBlanc was intentionally underemployed.

The court dismissed the motion to change, finding Mr. LeBlanc failed to establish a material change in circumstances that would warrant a reduction in imputed income.

The court also declined Ms. Brothers' requests for an order jailing Mr. LeBlanc for non-payment and an order against Cynthia Thomas, as these were not properly before the court.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion for Crown wardship without access for the child P-J.S-M. The mother, M.S., supported the paternal grandmother's (K.N.) plan of care, while the father, R.M., was noted in default.

The Society argued K.N. was unsuitable due to her history of non-cooperation and inability to protect the child from R.M.'s violent behavior.

K.N. contended the Society failed its duty to conduct a kin assessment.

The court found the Society had justifiable reasons not to conduct a kin assessment, citing R.M.'s aggressive behavior, K.N.'s past defense of him, and the inadequacy of her safety plan.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that access would impair the child's future adoption opportunities.

The respondent mother brought a motion to set aside a summary judgment decision rendered on September 29, 2014, in a child protection matter.

The mother sought to reopen the hearing based on newly received hair follicle drug test results from May 2014 and alleged factual errors in the judgment.

The court addressed the threshold jurisdictional issue of whether it was functus officio and determined it retained discretion to reconsider the judgment prior to the order being entered.

The court found that while the mother had not exercised due diligence in obtaining the test results, the evidence would not have changed the outcome given the totality of grave concerns including the mother's historical drug use, failure to cooperate with testing, violent conduct, poor judgment in child supervision, and refusal to accept responsibility for harm to the children.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a prior consent order concerning custody and access to the parties' child.

The mother sought to increase her access time, restrict the father's exclusive decision-making authority over extracurricular activities, obtain "make-up access" when activities conflicted with her parenting time, and require the father to provide financial and other information.

The court found that the mother failed to establish a material change in circumstances affecting the child's best interests as required by the Children's Law Reform Act.

The child was thriving academically, physically, and socially under the existing arrangement.

The court granted some of the mother's requests on a consensual basis but denied the contested claims, including the additional mid-week access, make-up access provisions, and restrictions on the father's extracurricular decision-making authority.

The court clarified that as a joint custodial parent, the mother has the right to make decisions about the child's participation in extracurricular activities during her parenting time.

This is a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act brought by the Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society seeking a finding that a child remains in need of protection and an order of Crown wardship without access.

The Society sought to introduce hearsay statements made by the child's siblings to third parties.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of these statements under both the state of mind exception and the principled approach to hearsay.

The court found that certain statements met the threshold reliability requirements and were admissible, while others did not satisfy the criteria for admission.

An interjurisdictional support order application brought by a father residing in Winnipeg, Manitoba against a mother residing in Sault Ste.

Marie, Ontario.

The father sought child support from the mother for their biological child and a child to whom he stood in loco parentis, and sought to vary or terminate existing support orders from British Columbia, Ontario, and Manitoba courts.

The application was converted to a case conference due to both parties' absence.

The court identified significant procedural deficiencies in the applicant's application and the respondent's failure to file required documentation, and adjourned the matter to allow both parties to cure these deficiencies.