Family and Matrimonial Law

The applicant mother sought child support from the respondent father under the Inter-Jurisdictional Support Orders Act.

The father disputed the table amount, retroactive application, and contribution to special expenses, primarily claiming undue hardship due to high debts, potential job loss, and access costs.

The court rejected the father's undue hardship claim, finding his debts were not incurred as per the Guidelines, his financial support of other adults did not trump child support, and he did not exercise access.

The court ordered child support based on the father's income, retroactive to February 2018, but declined to order contributions for daycare or soccer expenses due to insufficient evidence and the non-extraordinary nature of the soccer expense.

The father was ordered to maintain the child as a beneficiary under his medical/dental plan.

This decision addresses the costs following a previous motion in Niranjan v. Rajaghatta, 2018 ONSC 5557.

The Applicant, Hema Niranjan, sought full recovery of her costs, arguing she was the successful party and the Respondent, Niranjan Rajaghatta, acted unreasonably.

The Respondent, self-represented, also sought costs, claiming success on child support and alleging the Applicant acted unlawfully.

The court found the Applicant was the successful party on the central issues of disclosure and the sale of the Brookstone property, and that her behaviour was reasonable.

The Respondent's behaviour was deemed unreasonable due to filing an unidentified affidavit and failing to provide full and frank disclosure.

Consequently, the court awarded the Applicant fixed costs of $3,500, payable forthwith.

This hearing confirmed a provisional order from the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia that varied spousal support.

The applicant sought to terminate spousal support, while the respondent requested refusal of confirmation or a variation to $900 per month.

The court confirmed the provisional order but varied it to nominal support of $1 per year, rather than complete termination, citing the long marriage and economic disadvantage to the respondent.

The court also ordered ongoing income disclosure between the parties.

The applicant's unjust enrichment claim was dismissed after a six-day family law trial.

The respondent sought costs, relying on an offer to settle made under Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and that her offer to settle, which proposed paying the applicant $10,000 for dismissal of all claims without costs, was more favourable than the judgment.

Considering the reasonableness and proportionality of costs, the court awarded the respondent $38,652.45 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, covering the period from the date of her offer.

The applicant's arguments regarding his financial position and health were not found to be a strong connection to the costs of the failed application.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion without notice to C.O., seeking a finding that C.O. is not a "parent" as defined under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and an order removing him as a respondent.

C.O. had been found to be the father of child E. by Justice Agro in 2007 under the former Child and Family Services Act, and this finding had never been appealed or set aside.

The court dismissed the motion on four grounds: (1) C.O. held the legal status of parent and was entitled to notice as a fundamental principle of natural justice; (2) the coming into force of the CYFSA did not retroactively affect the validity of the prior finding of parentage; (3) C.O. was a party affected by the motion and entitled to notice under the Family Law Rules; and (4) the Society failed to meet the test for bringing a motion without notice.

The court also addressed the Society's conduct in attempting to circumvent procedural requirements and imposed restrictions on future similar motions.

Richard Wight moved to terminate a child support order and expunge arrears.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services (MCSS), as assignee of the support order, opposed this and brought a motion for extensive financial disclosure from Wight, including tax returns from 1978.

The court applied the proportionality principle, finding MCSS's disclosure requests disproportionate given the age of the order and the limited amount of outstanding arrears.

Wight was ordered to provide consents for MCSS to obtain information directly from CRA and FRO, and to provide a copy of a related Owen Sound order, but the broader disclosure requests were dismissed.

The applicant sought costs after successfully obtaining an order for the return of his child and joint custody, following the respondent's unilateral relocation of the child.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith by removing the child without consultation, despite a prior joint custody order.

The court awarded the applicant $5,000 in costs, balancing the bad faith conduct with the impact on the custody order.

The Children and Family Services for York Region ("the Society") brought a motion seeking three orders: placing a child (A.G.) in the Society's care, appointing independent legal counsel for the children (A.G. and M.G.), and requiring the father (J.G.) to undergo a sexual behaviours assessment, including phallometric testing.

The motion to place A.G. in care was adjourned by consent for kin assessments.

The court dismissed the request for independent legal counsel, finding it unnecessary and potentially detrimental in a case marked by parental alienation, where the children's views were already known and potentially influenced by the mother.

The court also dismissed the request for a sexual behaviours assessment, ruling it was not "necessary" under section 98(2) of the Child Youth and Family Services Act, given the inconclusive nature of the allegations, the intrusive nature of the testing, and the existence of other grounds for protection related to parental conflict and alienation.

This decision addresses the parties' respective claims for costs following motions in a family law proceeding.

Melanie Krystal Ashley Dulude sought $15,000 in costs, while Derry Cordeiro sought $5,373.09.

The court reviewed the parties' success on various issues, their conduct, and the relevance of legal invoices.

Due to divided success on the underlying motions and inappropriate conduct by both parties, including involving children in disputes and interfering with access, the court determined that no cost award would be made to either party.

This case addresses the determination of ongoing spousal and child support obligations following a divorce, as well as claims for retroactive support.

The court determined the applicant's income based on a three-year rolling average of his professional corporation's earnings and imputed income to the self-represented respondent due to intentional under-employment.

Ongoing spousal support was ordered for the respondent, and child support was ordered for the applicant, with the amounts set off to ensure timely payments.

The court declined to order retroactive adjustments, citing the respondent's failure to disclose income and misuse of funds intended for a child's postsecondary education.

This is a costs ruling following an emergency motion where the Respondent Father (RF) successfully obtained an order for the children to be re-enrolled in their original schools and for Newmarket to be the appropriate forum.

The RF sought over $14,000 in costs.

The Applicant Mother (AM) opposed the costs, arguing for proportionality and citing an inability to pay.

The court found the AM's unilateral decision to change schools unwarranted but deemed the RF's requested costs grossly disproportionate.

The AM was ordered to pay $3,500 in fixed costs to the RF, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant sought to vary a consent order for spousal support and matrimonial home carrying costs, citing undue hardship and a material change in circumstances due to income loss and alleged hidden income by the respondent.

The court applied the material change test from L.M.P. v. L.S. and found that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving a material change on a balance of probabilities.

The motion was dismissed.

This decision follows a two-day trial concerning custody and access for the parties' two children.

The father sought equal parenting time (50/50), while the mother sought joint custody with primary care to her and specific access for the father.

The court applied the "best interests of the child" test under the Children's Law Reform Act, giving particular consideration to the elder child's special needs for routine and stability.

The court found the mother better suited to meet the elder child's needs and ordered joint custody with primary residence to the mother, granting the father parenting time on alternating weekends and two mid-week evening visits.

The court also addressed the parents' communication issues, ordering the use of a communication program and emphasizing the need to avoid conflict in front of the children.

Child support and Section 7 expenses were also determined.

The applicant sought an annulment of her marriage based on non-consummation and alleged immigration fraud by the respondent.

The court dismissed the application, finding that non-consummation due to wilful refusal is insufficient for annulment, as it requires evidence of permanent physical or psychological impotency.

Furthermore, the court reiterated that immigration fraud cannot be a valid ground for annulment under Ontario law, citing established precedent.

The applicant was granted leave to amend her application to seek a divorce.

This is a costs endorsement arising from an interim motion where the applicant was substantially successful on relocation and shared parenting issues.

The applicant sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The court considered the applicant's success, the reasonableness of counsel's hourly rate, a good offer to settle made by the applicant, and the respondent's inability to pay.

Costs were fixed at $14,000, inclusive of taxes and disbursements, payable by the respondent within 90 days.

The respondent brought a motion for a determination of the appropriate quantum of temporary spousal support.

The court was tasked with determining the applicant's income for support purposes, considering personal expenses paid by the business and non-arm's length wages.

The court averaged expert calculations to arrive at an income of $634,733 for the applicant and ordered temporary spousal support of $20,000 per month, retroactive to December 1, 2017.

The decision emphasized "rough justice" for interim orders and the application of Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines despite the payor's income exceeding the ceiling.

This is a default enforcement hearing under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996 arising from a support payor's failure to pay court-ordered child and spousal support.

The payor accumulated arrears of $1,105,390.77 as of April 1, 2018, stemming from a 2007 trial order requiring $5,475 per month in child support and $4,340 per month in spousal support based on imputed annual income of $344,261.

The payor claimed inability to pay due to business closure in 2008 and mental health issues.

The court found the payor had deliberately and willfully avoided his support obligations over many years, had not complied with court orders, and had intentionally underemployed himself.

The court rejected the payor's claims of inability to pay and imposed a stepped payment schedule with jail terms for default.

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel brought a motion for an order placing a newborn child in extended society care pending determination of a protection application seeking Crown wardship.

The child had been apprehended two days after birth due to concerns regarding the mother's mental health issues, transiency, parenting ability, and prior child protection involvement, as well as concerns regarding the father's substance use and inability to present a care plan.

The mother sought return of the child to her care, asserting she had addressed her mental health issues and secured appropriate accommodations.

The court found that the Society had met its burden under section 94(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, establishing reasonable grounds to believe the child would suffer harm if returned to the mother's care, even with conditions.

The motion was granted, placing the child in the interim care of the Society with access at the Society's discretion.

The accused was charged with assaulting the complainant by banging his head against a wall twice and tearing his lip, requiring eight stitches.

The complainant and accused were in a polygamous marriage under Sharia law.

The accused denied the assault, claiming the injury was self-inflicted or caused by someone else.

The court found the accused's evidence credible and corroborated by her daughter's testimony.

The complainant's evidence was found to be internally inconsistent, inconsistent with his prior affidavit, and motivated by financial and community concerns.

The court concluded the complainant intentionally injured himself after leaving the home and fabricated the assault allegation to gain leverage in family law proceedings and minimize his financial obligations.

A costs decision following contested motions for custody and access in a high-conflict family law matter.

The mother sought full recovery of costs at $13,079.75 after succeeding on her motion for sole custody and access.

The father argued the amount was excessive and claimed inability to pay.

The court awarded costs to the mother on a substantial recovery basis, finding the father's conduct was unreasonable, including filing disproportionate and voluminous material, and failing to make a reasonable settlement offer.

The court awarded $10,000 all-inclusive (fees plus HST and disbursements).