Family and Matrimonial Law

Following a family law trial with equally divided success, both parties sought costs.

The court reviewed the outcomes on spousal support, child support, chattels, and loans, concluding that neither party was more successful than the other.

Settlement offers and conduct were neutral factors.

Consequently, the court made no order as to costs.

Additionally, the court finalized the arrears for section 7 expenses, ordering the husband to pay $27,844.00 as clarified by the wife, rejecting the husband's attempt to re-litigate the legitimacy of the expenses post-trial.

The parties, who were unmarried cohabitants, jointly purchased a home.

The applicant paid the down payment and all mortgage and property expenses during cohabitation and for 3.75 years post-separation.

After the property was sold, the applicant moved for summary judgment seeking an unequal division of the net sale proceeds based on unjust enrichment.

The respondent opposed, seeking equal division and occupation rent for the post-separation period.

The court granted the applicant's motion, finding he was unjustly enriched by paying down the mortgage principal and replacing the furnace without contribution from the respondent.

The respondent's claim for occupation rent was dismissed as inequitable given her lack of financial contribution to the property.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's financial pleadings for failing to comply with an interim order requiring him to pay child support, spousal support, and costs, and to provide financial disclosure.

The father admitted the breach but argued he had provided significant disclosure and was impecunious.

The court rejected the impecuniosity defence, noting the father owned a Ferrari and had an admitted income of $337,000.

However, given the complexity of the financial issues and the principle that striking pleadings is a remedy of last resort, the court granted the father one final opportunity to comply with the interim order before his pleadings would be struck.

The parties were involved in family law litigation where costs of a disclosure motion were reserved.

They subsequently agreed to mediation/arbitration and signed a comprehensive Separation Agreement settling all outstanding issues.

The respondent husband later sought a determination of the reserved costs.

The court held that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the issue of costs because the parties had comprehensively settled all of their outstanding issues, and the husband failed to raise the issue of reserved costs during the mediation or before signing the settlement documents.

The applicant father and respondent mother brought cross-motions for interim custody and access of their two-year-old child.

The mother sought interim sole custody due to the child's concerning behaviors following access visits and a suspected milk allergy, which the father dismissed.

The father sought interim joint custody and equal parenting time, relying on the maximum contact principle.

The court granted interim sole custody to the mother, finding the father's dismissive attitude toward the child's symptoms and need for control were not in the child's best interests.

The court ordered a graduated increase in the father's access time but rejected his request for equal parenting time, emphasizing that the maximum contact principle must be subject to the child's best interests under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The applicant brought a motion for the sale of a jointly owned home following the separation of the unmarried parties.

The respondent, who resided in the home, opposed the sale but could not offer sufficient reasons or afford to keep the property.

Applying the Partition Act and the test from Davis v. Davis, the court found no exceptional circumstances to deny the sale.

The court ordered the property to be listed for sale, with the net proceeds paid into court pending resolution of the respondent's constructive trust claim.

The applicant mother sought temporary orders for child support and a restrictive parenting schedule, while the respondent father sought increased parenting time, partition and sale of the matrimonial home, and spousal support.

The court expanded the father's parenting time to three days a week, finding the mother had unreasonably restricted his access despite his capability.

The court ordered the immediate partition and sale of the matrimonial home, finding no prejudice to the mother's equalization claims, and ordered her to pay $1,000 monthly in occupation rent.

The father was ordered to pay $21,600 in retroactive child support and $500 monthly in ongoing child support, with his spousal support claim dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support and related relief.

The respondent cross-moved to dismiss the application for want of jurisdiction, arguing he was a resident of Quebec and not subject to Ontario family law.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding the respondent had resided in Ontario for the last 2.5 years of the relationship.

The court granted partial summary judgment for credit card debt, ordered $250,000 in lump sum interim spousal support, and added the respondent's company as a third party, finding it was his financial alter ego.

Following an eight-year separation, the parties were unable to resolve the division of their personal property and affinity points despite a separation agreement.

The respondent brought a motion for the return of items, which was converted into a short trial.

The court found the applicant to be an evasive witness who deliberately failed to comply with the agreement and court orders, particularly regarding Aeroplan points.

The court divided the disputed chattels item by item, set off the value of the Aeroplan points against amounts owed by the respondent, and awarded $20,000 in costs to the respondent due to the applicant's unreasonable conduct.

The father brought a motion for an order requiring the parties and their two children to attend a multi-day family reunification therapy program, alleging that the mother was alienating the children from him.

The mother opposed the motion and refused to consent to the therapy.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father had not established alienation, that counselling requires the cooperation of both parents, and that the proposed therapy constituted 'treatment' under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, thereby requiring the consent of the mother and presumptively the children.

The father brought a motion for disclosure of the mother's and child's cell phone records and devices, alleging the mother was texting the child to sabotage his parenting time.

The court found the request was properly framed under Rule 20(5) of the Family Law Rules.

The court partially granted the motion, ordering limited disclosure of the mother's text messages and Telus records for specific dates, but refused to order production of the child's devices to protect her privacy.

The applicant moved to vary a 2012 order to terminate child and spousal support.

The court denied the applicant's request to amend pleadings at trial to seek earlier child support termination dates.

Child support was terminated on consent effective May 2016, and the respondent was ordered to pay $5,350 for her share of retroactive post-secondary education expenses.

The court dismissed the motion to terminate spousal support, finding that despite the respondent's conjugal relationship and increased income, her compensatory entitlement from the 20-year marriage had not yet been exhausted.

The respondent moved to dismiss the applicant's application for a constructive trust over a shared property, arguing the Superior Court of Justice, Family Court lacked jurisdiction.

The court found the application was properly brought in the Superior Court of Justice and that the Family Law Rules applied because the parties' arrangement was made in anticipation of cohabitation.

The respondent's motion was dismissed, his separate civil proceeding was permanently stayed, and he was enjoined from entering the property.

The applicant father and respondent mother lived in California but jointly decided to relocate to Ontario, purchasing a home and shipping their belongings.

During the move, the mother travelled to Connecticut with their child and decided to separate.

The father continued to Ontario and later brought the child to Ontario for a visit, subsequently commencing a custody application.

The mother challenged the Ontario court's jurisdiction under s. 22(1) of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court found that despite the child not being habitually resident in Ontario, the court had jurisdiction under s. 22(1)(b) because the parties had a shared settled intention to move to Ontario, establishing a real and substantial connection, and the balance of convenience favoured Ontario.

The applicant brought a motion to adjourn a family law trial scheduled to proceed in four weeks due to her counsel's competing trial commitment.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, citing his age, health, and the stress of ongoing litigation, as well as the applicant's counsel's neglect in addressing the scheduling conflict earlier.

The court weighed the prejudice to both parties and the broader public interest, concluding that the potential prejudice to the applicant of proceeding without counsel outweighed the inconvenience to the respondent, which could be compensated in costs.

The trial was adjourned to the fall sittings, peremptory to the applicant, with submissions requested on whether the applicant's counsel should personally bear the costs.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and an order granting custody to the mother with supervised access for the father.

The father opposed the motion, arguing he should be allowed to defend a pending criminal trial first and that there were genuine issues of credibility requiring a trial.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the father failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the Society's case.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the children in need of protection due to exposure to parental conflict, and ordered custody to the mother with supervised access for the father.

The applicant Society brought a status review application seeking Crown wardship without access for a 20-month-old child.

The respondent parents opposed, seeking the child's return under a supervision order.

The court found the child in continuing need of protection due to the parents' ongoing domestic conflict and inability to remain separated despite extensive services.

The court ordered Crown wardship, finding the parents' plan for joint custody unrealistic.

However, the court found the parents rebutted the presumption against access, ordering access at the Society's discretion (minimum once per month) as it was meaningful, beneficial, and would not impair future adoption.

The applicant sought costs following a successful family law application.

The court considered the applicant's success and her genuine attempts to resolve the matter through an offer to settle.

Applying Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $5,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable forthwith by the respondent.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2015 final order regarding child support and section 7 expenses for the parties' three children.

The mother sought to remove a travel credit previously granted to the respondent father and to fix his income at $65,123.00, while the father argued his income had decreased to $50,000.00.

The court rejected the father's evidence of decreased income, finding his employment income was not indicative of his actual gross income.

The court ordered the father to pay $1266.00 per month in base child support, $239.00 per month for section 7 expenses, and fixed arrears at $7714.00 for base support and $7000.00 for section 7 expenses.

The Applicant brought a motion for interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and the Respondent brought a motion for an order compelling global mediation.

The court granted the Applicant's motion, finding that it was in the best interests of the children to remain in the only home they had known without disruption.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion for global mediation, finding no agreement between the parties to globally mediate the matter.