Family and Matrimonial Law

The applicant wife brought a motion for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home and for temporary exclusive possession pending the sale.

The respondent husband brought a cross-motion for partial summary judgment to enforce an alleged pre-litigation settlement agreement for him to buy out the wife's interest.

The court found that the correspondence between counsel did not constitute a binding agreement, as essential terms regarding spousal support and equalization were not settled.

The court granted the wife's motion for partition and sale, finding no prejudice to the husband, but dismissed her request for temporary exclusive possession due to insufficient evidence.

The applicant sought costs of $7,500 following three motions concerning parenting time, school registration, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent requested no order for costs.

The court found divided success but determined the applicant was the more successful party on the core issues.

Considering the parties' behaviour, the importance of the issues, and the time spent, the court ordered the respondent to pay $6,000 in costs to the applicant, payable from his share of the net proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home.

The moving party brought a motion to set aside the registration of an Australian child support order under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002.

The moving party failed to serve the Ontario Interjurisdictional Support Orders Unit (the designated authority) as required by section 20(3) of the Act and Rule 37(20)(c) of the Family Law Rules.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, allowing the moving party 20 days to recommence the motion and properly serve the designated authority, while extending a temporary stay of enforcement.

The moving party defendant sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims of fraudulent conveyance and conspiracy.

The plaintiff alleged her former husband fraudulently conveyed shares in a company holding real property to his brother (the moving party) to defeat her family law judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly regarding the relationships among the defendants, credibility, and whether the ten-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act applied to the fraudulent conveyance claim.

The parties attended a family law case conference.

The respondent husband revealed for the first time at the conference that he and his partners had sold their business the previous day, despite having negotiated the sale for five months.

The applicant wife sought leave to retain her own Chartered Business Valuator to prepare a comprehensive valuation of the respondent's business interest, which the respondent opposed on the basis that they had previously jointly retained a valuator who provided a calculation valuation.

The court granted the applicant leave to retain her own expert, finding that the respondent failed to comply with his financial disclosure obligations and that the previous calculation valuation provided little assurance of accuracy.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the conference due to his late disclosure, with the amount to be determined.

The applicant sought a temporary without prejudice order for child and spousal support.

The respondent argued the motion was barred by a marriage contract that effectively waived spousal support.

The court found a triable issue regarding the enforceability of the contract under the Miglin framework, noting the applicant's inability to work due to cancer and caring for special needs children.

The court imputed an income of $965,000 to the respondent, who had become a non-resident for tax purposes, and ordered him to pay $3,952 per month in child support and $21,423 per month in spousal support, along with section 7 expenses.

The applicant father and respondent mother brought competing motions regarding the sale of the matrimonial home and a request for a parenting assessment.

The father sought interim exclusive possession of the home and a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act, while the mother sought to enforce a prior trial order to sell the home.

The court granted the mother's motion, ordering the father to vacate the home so it could be sold, finding his request for exclusive possession was an improper attempt to stay the final trial decision.

The court dismissed the father's motion for a parenting assessment, concluding that the issues were factual rather than clinical and that further testing would be unnecessarily intrusive to the children.

The mother was successful on two motions regarding the sale of the matrimonial home and a section 30 assessment.

She sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court found that the father acted unreasonably by filing excessive materials and breaching a prior court order by obtaining unauthorized evaluations of the children, though his conduct did not amount to bad faith.

The mother was awarded costs of $7,256 on a substantial indemnity scale.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking a temporary order for week-about parenting time and shared decision-making.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to maintain the status quo of primary residence with her, joint decision-making with a veto, and child support.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion for a week-about schedule, finding it impractical and not in the child's best interests due to excessive travel time.

The court granted the respondent's cross-motion, maintaining the status quo, granting her a decision-making veto, and ordering the applicant to pay ongoing child support and arrears.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of the parties' common law relationship.

The applicant is the primary caregiver to their young child and has a significantly lower income than the respondent, whose income was impacted by the pandemic.

The court applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $1,821 per month, finding this mid-range amount fair based on the parties' current estimated incomes.

Following a five-day family law trial where the respondent was entirely successful, the respondent sought full recovery costs of $139,675.71.

The court found that the respondent beat her offers to settle and that the applicant acted in bad faith by hiding income, failing to make disclosure, and advancing spurious claims to drain the respondent's resources.

The court awarded the respondent her full claimed costs of $139,675.71, enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office as child and spousal support.

The applicant brought a motion to re-open a family law trial to admit an appraisal report regarding the matrimonial home, which was omitted from the joint document brief due to counsel's inadvertence.

The trial decision had already been released, though judgment was not yet entered.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no mutual mistake between counsel regarding the document's inclusion.

Applying the test to re-open a trial, the court held that the evidence was available before trial and could have been adduced with reasonable diligence, and that the principle of finality weighed against re-opening the matter.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary ongoing child support, retroactive child support arrears, and financial disclosure.

The court ordered temporary child support based on the respondent father's actual income of $39,600, declining to impute a higher income.

The issue of retroactive child support was adjourned to trial due to the complex financial history, including the applicant's unilateral refinancing of the matrimonial home.

The court ordered a process for resolving the remaining disclosure issues and awarded the applicant $7,000 in costs based on divided success.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a 2011 final order, seeking to terminate child support and set arrears to zero due to a decrease in his income as a professional dart player.

The respondent mother sought retroactive child support and ongoing support based on imputed income.

The court found a change in circumstances but declined to order retroactive support beyond 2016, finding no blameworthy conduct by the father.

The court imputed income to the father by disallowing certain business expenses and ordered ongoing set-off child support based on the parties' adjusted incomes.

The payor father brought a motion to change seeking to terminate child support for two adult children as of their 18th birthdays.

The recipient mother responded by seeking retroactive increases in child support back to 2006 based on the father's undisclosed income increases, as well as section 7 expenses.

The court terminated support for the adult children as of the dates they withdrew from high school, rather than their 18th birthdays.

Applying the D.B.S. framework, the court ordered retroactive child support back to 2013, finding the father's failure to disclose significant income increases constituted blameworthy conduct, and fixed arrears at $25,082.

The paternal grandparents brought a motion for access to their six-year-old grandson.

The child's mother, who had primary care, opposed the motion, citing historical conflict, the grandparents' previous refusal to return the child, and inappropriate behaviour.

The grandparents alleged the mother provided inadequate care, but the Children's Aid Society confirmed the mother provided a safe and stable home.

Applying the Chapman framework, the court deferred to the mother's decision, finding her actions were not arbitrary and that extending access would introduce unnecessary conflict contrary to the child's best interests.

The motion was dismissed.

Following a motion for interim spousal support where the applicant was successful, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The court noted that the respondent unnecessarily complicated the proceedings by conducting a forensic audit of the applicant's finances, which drove up costs.

Although the respondent had made offers to settle, they included conditions the applicant could not accept.

The court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $85,000.

The respondent mother brought a motion to vary an interim access order that required her to transport the parties' 19-month-old child from Windsor to Toronto for weekend access with the applicant father.

The mother argued that the child's age, winter driving conditions, and the child's familiarity with the father's home constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no material change in circumstances that would justify varying the interim order, and noted that the mother had unilaterally removed the child from Toronto to Windsor prior to the initial order.

The applicants, devout Christians, applied to be foster parents and informed the Children's Aid Society that they would not lie to children about the existence of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

The Society initially approved them, but later removed two foster children from their care and closed their foster home because the applicants refused to proactively tell the children that the Easter Bunny was real.

The applicants sought a declaration that their Charter rights were violated.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, finding that the Society's actions arbitrarily and unreasonably violated the applicants' freedom of religion and freedom of expression under ss. 2(a) and 2(b) of the Charter, and ordered the Society to note the Charter violations in the applicants' file.

The respondent brought a motion to change a 2008 consent order, seeking to terminate or reduce his spousal support obligations due to his planned retirement at age 62, his remarriage, and the applicant's re-partnering and turning 65.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought a retroactive increase in support based on the respondent's post-separation income increases.

The court found that the respondent's voluntary retirement, the applicant's age, and the parties' new relationships did not constitute a material change in circumstances.

The court also dismissed the applicant's claim for retroactive support, noting the support was needs-based.

Both the motion to change and the request for retroactive increase were dismissed.