Family and Matrimonial Law

The mother brought an urgent, ex parte motion to change a final joint custody order to allow her to relocate with the child.

The court considered the motion under the COVID-19 Notices to the Profession.

The court found the motion was not urgent enough to proceed without notice, but qualified as a pressing matter.

The court ordered the mother to serve the father and scheduled a case conference.

The applicant maternal grandmother brought an urgent motion for sole custody of her 15-year-old grandson, who had been living with her since the end of March 2020.

The grandmother alleged the respondent mother had an unstable lifestyle.

The triage judge determined the matter was not urgent, noting procedural deficiencies including failure to serve the biological father and lack of clarity on whether a previous joint custody order existed.

The court found the 15-year-old child was currently staying with the grandmother by his own choice and was not in imminent danger of being removed.

The urgent motion was dismissed and a case conference was directed to be scheduled.

The moving party father brought a motion for supervised access to his children outside of a supervised access centre, which was closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

He proposed that his parents or brother supervise the access.

The responding party mother opposed the motion, citing safety concerns stemming from pending criminal charges against the father for severe domestic violence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that given the serious nature of the untested allegations, supervision by close family members was inappropriate as they might feel conflicted about reporting problems.

The court held that an independent supervisor was required and allowed the father to propose alternate supervisors.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion without notice for the return of two of the parties' children to her care, alleging domestic abuse.

The applicant father disputed the allegations and claimed the children primarily resided with him.

The court found the matter was a parenting dispute rather than an urgent issue arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, though it noted concern over the father's apparent failure to facilitate contact.

The court declined to proceed with the motion and instead directed the parties to attend a case conference restricted to temporary parenting arrangements.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking the immediate return of her three children after the respondent father refused to return them following a weekend visit, citing an incident involving the mother's partner.

The court reviewed the mother's materials as a triage judge during the COVID-19 court suspension.

The court found the custody and access issues to be potentially urgent and set a timetable for the father to file responding materials and for the Children's Aid Society to provide an update before a formal hearing.

The applicant and respondent participated in a Nikah ceremony and cohabited for four and a half years.

The court deemed the marriage valid under s. 31 of the Marriage Act.

The applicant sought a 50% equitable interest in the matrimonial home, which was registered in the names of the respondent and his father.

The court found a resulting trust in favour of the applicant, declaring her a 50% owner, and ordered the sale of the home.

The court awarded the applicant occupation rent and an unequal division of net family properties due to the respondent's reckless gambling debts and the applicant's undisclosed student loan.

Income was imputed to the respondent for child support purposes, resulting in significant arrears.

The court ordered alternating weekend access for the respondent, with a condition that the child not be left alone with the paternal grandfather due to unresolved historical allegations.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for the immediate return of the parties' nine-year-old daughter to Ottawa to resume in-person access.

The mother had previously relocated the child to Tiny Township without consent and, in breach of a prior court order, failed to return the child, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as justification.

The court found the mother in breach of the prior order and rejected her attempt to use the public health emergency as an excuse to unilaterally relocate.

The motion was granted, and the mother was ordered to return the child to Ottawa with police enforcement.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion regarding parenting time during the COVID-19 court suspension.

The triage judge reviewed the father's materials and found that he had unilaterally retained the three-year-old child after a period of access due to frustration over timesharing disputes.

The court declined to hear the motion, noting strong disapproval of self-help in parenting disputes, and recommended the immediate return of the child to the respondent mother.

The applicant father sought an immediate custody order for his four-year-old son following the death of the mother.

The matter was heard as a triage decision during the COVID-19 suspension of regular court operations.

The court noted evidentiary deficiencies in the father's materials, including an unsworn application and an improperly completed s. 35.1 affidavit.

However, recognizing the father's need for authority to make medical and administrative decisions for the child, the court granted a temporary custody order and dispensed with service, adjourning the application for the filing of updated and proper evidence.

The applicant mother, who had primary de facto custody of the parties' child, brought a motion seeking court authorization to have the child vaccinated at an urgent care pediatric clinic during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The respondent father did not oppose vaccination but wanted it done by the child's regular doctor with his input.

The court found that it was in the child's best interests to be vaccinated under medical supervision, noting the regular pediatrician was not practicing during the pandemic.

The court granted the order and also awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs of $3,131.29 for a previous motion.

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking to terminate his spousal support obligation following his involuntary termination from employment.

The respondent sought a retroactive increase for 2018 and ongoing support based on imputed income.

The court found a material change in circumstances but declined to retroactively increase support for 2018, as the respondent's needs were being met.

For 2019, support was reduced based on the applicant's actual income.

The court refused to terminate support for 2020 onwards, instead imputing an income of $40,000 to the applicant given his ongoing obligation and capacity to work in lower-paying jobs.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for interim access to her child, who resided primarily with the respondent paternal grandmother.

The grandmother had suspended access due to the COVID-19 public health emergency.

The court found no evidence that children are particularly vulnerable to the virus and noted that access should continue as ordered provided emergency orders are followed.

The court ordered that parenting time resume in accordance with the parties' prior parenting agreement.

The applicants brought an urgent motion for interim custody of a four-year-old child and an order prohibiting the respondent from removing the child from Essex County.

The court reviewed the request under the COVID-19 pandemic protocol for suspended court operations.

The triage judge found that the motion met the definition of an urgent family law event as it dealt with the well-being and potential wrongful removal of a child, and ordered that the motion proceed by conference call.

The moving party mother brought an urgent motion seeking alternate week residency of the parties' child after the responding party father cancelled her court-ordered access due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court applied the urgency criteria from the Chief Justice's Notice to the Profession and determined that the mother's allegations of wrongful retention of the child met the definition of urgency.

The court directed that the motion proceed and set a timetable for the exchange of materials.

The moving party mother brought a motion to change seeking over $540,000 in retroactive child support and section 7 expenses for the parties' two adult children, primarily for the son's dental school expenses in the United States.

The responding party father argued that his support obligations had terminated under their separation agreement and that both children had unilaterally terminated their relationships with him.

The court found that both children remained dependants while pursuing their post-secondary degrees and that retroactive support was appropriate effective January 1, 2009.

However, the court declined to order the father to contribute to the son's dental school expenses or the daughter's section 7 expenses, finding that both children had unjustifiably and unilaterally terminated their relationships with their father.

The father was ordered to pay $129,000 in table amount child support arrears.

The mother brought a motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal from a final order in a child protection proceeding.

The court first addressed a jurisdictional issue regarding whether an appeal from a final Ontario Court of Justice order lies to the Superior Court of Justice or the Divisional Court following the expansion of the Unified Family Court.

The court concluded that the appeal lies to the Superior Court of Justice and that the judge had jurisdiction to hear the motion.

On the merits, the court denied the motion to extend time, finding that the mother failed to demonstrate a firm intention to appeal within the required time, failed to adequately explain the delay, and that the appeal lacked merit.

The court also found that further delay would be prejudicial to the child's best interests.

The moving party sought to terminate his spousal support obligation after losing his employment.

The responding party opposed, arguing he should use his capital to continue payments.

The court found the loss of employment constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court suspended the spousal support obligation, concluding it was unfair to require the moving party to deplete his capital to fund support when both parties had comparable financial positions and capital assets.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, a change in the residential schedule, and section 7 expenses in an uncontested trial after the respondent father failed to file pleadings.

The court found that the father's hostility and refusal to collaborate made co-parenting impossible, granting the mother sole custody and adjusting the parenting schedule in the children's best interests.

Although the mother did not seek child support out of fear of the father's reaction, the court ordered the father to pay presumptive child support under section 3 of the Child Support Guidelines, along with his proportionate share of retroactive and ongoing section 7 expenses.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion to change regarding custody, access, and child support.

The court found the applicant was substantially successful and presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The court noted the respondent's unreasonable conduct in delaying the proceedings and failing to provide complete financial disclosure.

The applicant was awarded fixed costs of $40,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, extensive financial disclosure, preservation orders, and interim disbursements in a high-conflict family law proceeding.

The court found that the respondent had engaged in a complex corporate reorganization and failed to provide transparent disclosure regarding his assets and income.

The court imputed an annual income of $400,000 to the respondent based on the parties' lavish lifestyle and apparent diversion of funds.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim support, provide extensive corporate disclosure, and pay $100,000 as an advance for interim disbursements.

Preservation orders and certificates of pending litigation were also granted due to the risk of asset dissipation.