Family and Matrimonial Law

The applicant wife brought a motion for the partition and sale of four rural properties, including a farm and a woodlot, owned by the parties during their 25-year marriage.

The respondent husband opposed the sale of the farm and woodlot, arguing they were "farms" under the Family Law Act and thus protected from sale under section 11 prior to a final equalization determination.

The court found that while the farm was a "farm" and the woodlot was a "business" under the Act, section 11 does not operate as a complete bar to partition and sale.

Balancing the applicant's prima facie right to partition against the likelihood of section 9 remedies, the court ordered both properties listed for sale immediately, noting the farm's lack of profitability and the applicant's right to realize the highest market value.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to have two children placed in extended society care with no parental access.

The children had been apprehended following severe physical abuse and restraint by the respondent parents.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the material facts of the abuse were established and the parents' parenting capacity assessments indicated a high risk of future harm.

The motion was granted, the children were placed in extended society care, and parental access was denied as it was not in the children's best interests.

In a family law application for custody and access, both parties brought motions for disclosure.

The applicant sought the respondent's medical and psychiatric records relating to his alcohol dependency and mental health issues.

The respondent sought the applicant's financial and employment records to determine her self-employment income for child support purposes.

The court ordered the respondent to produce his medical records related to mental health and alcohol dependency, finding that the best interests of the child outweighed his privacy concerns under the Ryan test for privilege.

The court also ordered the applicant to produce her bank statements for 2015, as she had not provided a financial statement for her business for that year.

The parties settled most issues at the outset of the trial, leaving the residency scheme for their 11-year-old child as the sole issue.

The respondent father sought a week-about residency scheme for the child, relying on the child's expressed preference to spend more time with him.

The court found that the applicant mother had been the primary caregiver and provided a stable environment, while the father's proposed plan had many contingencies and lacked evidence regarding child care assistance.

The court held that the child's views and preferences were outweighed by other factors under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, and ordered that the existing residency scheme remain in place, subject to a future review.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change child support, seeking ongoing support for the parties' adult daughter attending college and retroactive support back to 2010.

The respondent father had unilaterally terminated support when the daughter finished high school and took a gap year.

The court held that the father had an ongoing obligation to pay table support while the daughter pursued her post-secondary education, excluding the gap year.

The court also ordered retroactive support for 2015-2017 based on the father's declared income, which was materially higher than the income used for the existing order.

The court declined to impute further income on the affidavit evidence, directing a trial of an issue if the mother wished to pursue further retroactive adjustments.

Following a lengthy family law trial where both parties experienced divided success, the applicant sought costs on the basis of the respondent's alleged bad faith and failure to disclose.

The respondent sought reimbursement of a $140,000 interim disbursement payment.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including the parties' offers to settle and the respondent's unreasonable conduct.

The court concluded that the respondent's conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith and, given the divided success and the offers to settle, ordered that no costs be awarded to either party.

The respondent's request for reimbursement was also denied.

The applicant father brought a motion for the return of the parties' child to Ottawa, while the respondent mother brought a cross-motion to stay the Ottawa proceedings and continue the matter in the York Region.

The mother had unilaterally moved with the child to Markham shortly before commencing her application.

The court determined that the child's habitual residence was Ottawa, where the child was born and raised before the mother's departure.

The court ordered the mother to return the child to Ottawa within 10 days, finding that Ottawa was the proper jurisdiction for the proceedings.

The respondent husband brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the applicant wife's application to set aside their separation agreement.

The wife argued that her poor health, reliance on a disability pension, and need for home repairs constituted an unanticipated change in circumstances.

Applying the two-stage test from Miglin, the court found that the agreement was negotiated with competent counsel and that the wife's change in circumstances did not represent a significant departure from what could have been reasonably anticipated.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the application to set aside the agreement was dismissed.

The parties reached a consent order regarding temporary relief and the matrimonial home prior to the return of a motion.

The applicant sought costs for the initial motion where she achieved partial success, while the respondent argued each party should bear their own costs.

The court awarded the applicant $3,000 in costs, noting her partial success on the contested motion before the previous judge.

The court determined the costs of two motions in a family law proceeding.

The respondent father was successful on a motion for the advancement of funds and was awarded costs of $22,967.05.

The respondent was unsuccessful on a motion to adjourn the trial, and the applicant mother was awarded costs of $7,631.38 for that motion.

The court ordered a set-off, resulting in a net payment of $15,335.67 by the applicant to the respondent.

The respondent father brought a motion for a stay of enforcement pending an appeal of a temporary order that changed primary parenting responsibility of the parties' 7-year-old daughter to the applicant mother.

The father argued the motion judge erred in refusing an adjournment, lacked jurisdiction, and failed to maintain the status quo.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the motion judge's refusal of an adjournment was entitled to deference, the jurisdictional argument lacked merit under rule 15(28), and compliance with the temporary order would not cause irreparable harm while the balance of convenience favoured leaving the child in the mother's care pending trial.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, the mother brought a motion to continue a section 30 parenting assessment and to order reunification therapy for the parties and their youngest son.

The father brought a cross-motion to appoint a lawyer for the child or order a Voice of the Child Report.

The court found a history of order non-compliance by the father and determined that the child's estrangement from the mother required immediate intervention.

The court granted the mother's motion, ordering reunification therapy to commence immediately alongside the section 30 assessment, and dismissed the father's motion, finding that further involving the child in the litigation was not in his best interests.

The applicant brought a contempt motion to enforce a final order regarding the return of household possessions.

The applicant had hired private investigators to surreptitiously enter the respondent's home under false pretenses to take photographs and videos of the items.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, holding that contempt is a remedy of last resort in family law and should not be used as a first step for enforcement.

The court also noted it would have declined to exercise its discretion to grant contempt due to the applicant's unacceptable conduct in using private investigators.

Furthermore, the court criticized the applicant's counsel for failing to comply with principles of civility and professionalism by unilaterally scheduling the motion and refusing reasonable adjournment requests.

Following a motion regarding parenting and support issues where the applicant father was largely successful on the primary parenting issues, he sought full indemnity costs of $51,217.01.

The respondent mother sought partial indemnity costs of $15,242.14, arguing mixed success.

The court found the father was the more successful party but reduced his costs to reflect the mother's success on support issues and the excessive materials filed by both parties.

The court awarded the father $12,000 in costs inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' 10-year-old child and permission to relocate with the child to Slovakia.

The respondent father opposed the move and sought equal parenting time.

The court found that the child had a strained relationship with the father, who remained fixated on a past domestic incident, while the mother had been the primary caregiver and presented a detailed plan for the relocation.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court granted the mother sole custody and permitted the move to Slovakia.

The court also ordered the father to pay lump sum spousal and child support based on an imputed income of $75,000.

The father brought motions for contempt, to strike an affidavit, and to enforce Skype access.

The mother brought motions for final custody, to terminate access, and to strike the father's pleadings for failure to pay support and costs.

The court dismissed the father's motions, finding no contempt and that forced Skype access was not in the children's best interests.

The court granted the mother final custody, noting the children had been in her exclusive care for nine years.

The court struck the father's financial and property claims due to his ongoing failure to pay over $100,000 in support arrears and costs, and prohibited him from taking further steps regarding access until he complied with prior financial orders.

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a separation agreement, under which the applicant owed her a balance of over $3.1 million.

The applicant sought to set aside the agreement, alleging material non-disclosure of the respondent's business assets and development projects.

The court found no evidence of material non-disclosure, noting the applicant had a general awareness of the assets and had failed to disclose the full value of his own assets prior to mediation.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the respondent and dismissed the applicant's motion to consolidate proceedings.

The applicant sought to change the living arrangements for the parties' 17-year-old child, arguing the child would be better off living with him.

The court agreed but declined to force the issue against the older teenager's wishes, noting it could do more harm than good.

The court varied previous orders to grant joint custody, with the child's principal residence remaining with the respondent and secondary residence with the applicant according to the child's wishes.

Child support payable by the respondent was also terminated.

The respondent mother brought a motion to suspend the applicant father's parenting time pending a Family and Children's Services (FACS) investigation into allegations that the father's step-son inappropriately touched the parties' child.

The court noted that both parents had inappropriately obtained taped statements from the child, resulting in contradictory accounts.

The court found the allegations serious but concluded it was not necessary to deny the father contact with the children.

The court ordered the resumption of the existing parenting schedule with conditions, including that the child not share a bedroom and that the parties engage in counselling.

The applicant father and respondent mother engaged in a high-conflict custody and access dispute over their five-year-old child.

The mother sought sole custody and decision-making, while the father sought expanded access and parallel parenting.

Following a 44-day trial and a section 30 assessment, the court granted the mother sole custody and primary residence, but significantly expanded the father's parenting time to include phased-in overnight visits.

The court ordered a divided parallel parenting regime for decision-making, granting the mother authority over education and routine medical care, and the father authority over routine dental care and final decision-making for major medical and dental issues.