Family and Matrimonial Law

The appellant father appealed an Ontario Court of Justice order requiring him to pay ongoing child support and arrears.

The parties were divorced in Finland, where a valid child support order was previously made.

The father had abducted the children to Morocco but they were later returned to Finland.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal and quashed the Ontario child support order, finding that under the Cheng v. Liu framework, the Finnish court had exclusive jurisdiction over child support because it granted the divorce and issued the initial support order.

The court noted the father's history of misleading authorities but held that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction to create a competing child support order.

The Children's Aid Society brought a status review application regarding a First Nations child who had been placed in the joint care of the parents under a supervision order.

The court found no ongoing protection concerns requiring Society supervision and terminated the supervision order.

In determining the appropriate parenting order under s. 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the court evaluated the competing plans of the parents.

The court awarded primary care and sole decision-making responsibility to the father, noting his ability to provide stability and the mother's history of relationships with violent partners, while granting the mother specified parenting time and decision-making responsibility for education.

Following a fifteen-day trial where the applicant was successful in her claims for spousal and child support, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought full recovery costs of $346,216.55 based on offers to settle that were more favourable to the respondent than the trial outcome.

The court found that the applicant's offers engaged Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules, entitling her to full recovery costs.

However, finding the claimed amount extraordinarily large, the court fixed costs at a fair and reasonable amount of $175,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

In a child protection proceeding, the child protection issues were resolved on a final basis with the children remaining in the primary care of the father and a prohibition of contact between the children and the mother's spouse.

The father sought costs against the mother for delay and unreasonable conduct.

The court found that the mother's conduct in pursuing contact between the children and her spouse, who had a violent criminal history, was unreasonable and not in the children's best interests.

The court awarded costs of $7,800 to the father.

The parties, parents of a young child, both brought motions in a high-conflict family law proceeding.

The applicant father sought to admit a Family Court Clinic Assessment report from a prior child protection proceeding into evidence, while the respondent mother sought increased supervised parenting time.

The court held that under section 98 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the report itself is inadmissible without the mother's consent, but the assessor may be called to testify regarding their opinions and recommendations.

The court also granted the mother's request for increased parenting time, adding one weekday evening to her schedule.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to temporarily relocate to Dubai for 11 months with the parties' 10-year-old daughter to accept a teaching contract.

The respondent father opposed the motion, raising concerns about the UAE not being a Hague Convention signatory, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the impact on his relationship with the child.

Applying the relocation provisions of the Divorce Act, the court found that the temporary relocation was in the child's best interests, noting the educational and cultural benefits, and granted the motion with conditions to ensure the child's return and the maintenance of the father's relationship through videoconferencing.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's civil claim for the return of approximately $190,000 transferred during their relationship.

The defendant argued the claim was barred by res judicata, as the issue of the unreturned money was raised and determined in their prior family law trial regarding spousal support.

The court granted the motion, finding that both issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel applied.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to relieve against the operation of res judicata, emphasizing the importance of finality in family law proceedings and preventing duplicative litigation.

The applicant mother sought to vary a final parenting order to require the respondent father's parenting time be supervised and to permit her to relocate with the child to Israel.

The father had a long history of abusive, threatening, and uncontrollable behaviour, which led to child protection proceedings and the suspension of his unsupervised access.

The court found that the father's conduct caused emotional harm to the child and that he refused to comply with court orders, including a mandated mental health assessment.

The court granted the mother's request to relocate to Israel, finding it in the child's best interests to be shielded from the father's harmful conduct, and ordered that the father's parenting time be strictly supervised.

The parties, who separated in 2016, sought a final order to resolve remaining issues regarding their two children, including the parenting schedule for holidays, sharing of private school tuition and other section 7 expenses, and RESP contributions.

The court ordered a fixed parenting schedule for holidays to minimize conflict, found that private school tuition was a necessary and reasonable section 7 expense to be shared equally, and ordered the applicant to pay her share of the tuition retroactive to the date of separation.

The court also ordered the respondent to reimburse the applicant for half of her post-separation contributions to the joint RESP.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection due to the mother's volatile behaviour, severe mood swings, and history of making false allegations of physical abuse against the father's partner.

The mother had also breached publication bans by posting videos and writing a book identifying the child.

The court found the child in need of protection under the CYFSA due to the risk of physical and emotional harm in the mother's care.

The child was placed with the father for six months under Society supervision.

The court declined to order access at the Society's discretion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to delegate such discretion, and instead ordered specific supervised access for the mother.

The applicant brought a motion on the first day of trial to strike the respondent's Answer due to his repeated failure to comply with court orders and the Family Law Rules.

The respondent had failed to provide sworn financial statements, failed to pay outstanding costs awards, failed to abide by timelines, and served hundreds of irrelevant documents on the eve of trial.

The court applied the three-pronged test for striking pleadings and found that the respondent's conduct was willful, vexatious, and wasteful.

The court struck the respondent's Answer and limited his participation in the trial to cross-examination and closing submissions, conditional upon his payment of outstanding costs.

Legal Aid Ontario brought a motion to re-open the evidence and vary a costs decision that held it liable for 50% of the full indemnity costs awarded against the respondent.

LAO sought to introduce evidence refuting the court's presumptions that it had received an expert report and notice of a Public Guardian and Trustee certificate earlier than it claimed.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the presumptions did not constitute a 'mistake' under Rule 25(19)(b) of the Family Law Rules, that LAO had ample opportunity to address these issues prior to the costs decision, and that the proposed evidence would not have changed the result.

The applicant brought a motion for specified financial disclosure from a company owned by the respondent's parents, where the respondent was currently employed, and for the respondent's father to attend for questioning.

The applicant alleged the respondent was shielding income to reduce his child and spousal support obligations.

The court granted the motion in part, ordering the non-party company to produce client lists and financial statements, and ordering the respondent's father to attend for questioning, finding it would be unfair for the applicant to proceed to the motion to change without this information.

Following a trial where the applicant was largely successful in obtaining child support, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The applicant sought $20,000, while the respondent suggested $10,000.

The court found the applicant was more reasonable in settlement efforts and at trial, but reduced the requested amount because some issues were resolved on consent.

The respondent was ordered to pay $15,000 in costs, enforceable as child support.

Following a family law trial where the applicant wife was largely successful, she sought costs of $11,042.34 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the settlement offers and found the applicant's offer was reasonable while the respondent's was not.

However, considering the respondent's difficult personal circumstances, including health problems and unemployment, the court tempered the costs award and ordered the respondent to pay $8,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

Following a trial that granted custody of three children to their biological father, the court determined the terms of access for the maternal grandfather.

The court ordered that access exchanges take place in MacTier, maintained regular weekend access, and granted extended summer and holiday access.

The grandfather was also permitted to travel outside of Ontario with the children, subject to providing advance notice and details to the father.

A police enforcement clause was included due to the father's history of non-compliance with access orders.

The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce a final order requiring the respondent father to provide annual income disclosure and automatically adjust child support.

The father argued this was effectively a motion to change the final order and should be heard alongside his own motion to change based on material changes in circumstances.

The court held that seeking compliance with an automatic adjustment clause is a matter of enforcement under Rule 1(8), not a motion to change under Rule 15.

The court ordered that the mother's enforcement motion be heard before the father's motion to change, as delaying enforcement would undermine the integrity of the existing order.

The applicant, George Chuvalo, brought a family law proceeding.

The respondent wife argued that the proceedings should be stayed under s. 10(2) of the Divorce Act to allow for reconciliation.

The court held a trial on the threshold issue of whether the applicant had the capacity to decide to reconcile or divorce.

Relying on expert medical evidence, the court found that the applicant lacked the capacity to decide whether to reconcile, as he could not appreciate the consequences of such a decision.

The Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed as his litigation guardian.

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking indefinite spousal support and child support.

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the motion to change.

The parties had previously executed comprehensive minutes of settlement and a final release regarding spousal support, which were incorporated into a 2008 court order.

The court applied the LMP and Willick framework, finding no material change in circumstances that was not contemplated by the final agreement.

The court also found no genuine issue for trial regarding child support, as the respondent had met all obligations.

The respondent's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the applicant's motion to change was dismissed.

Following an eight-day family law trial, the court determined the costs award.

Although the respondent was largely successful on the main issues, including equalization and spousal support, he engaged in significant unreasonable behaviour, including ignoring trial management orders, raising irrelevant allegations, and failing to deliver materials on time.

The court reduced the respondent's costs claim from $80,285 to $50,000 to reflect this unreasonable conduct.