Family and Matrimonial Law

The applicant mother brought a motion for child support and an order noting the respondent father in default.

The respondent failed to provide financial disclosure despite requests and a previous court order.

Relying on the Supreme Court's direction in Colucci, the court ordered the respondent's Answer struck if he failed to provide the required disclosure by a specified date.

The court also imputed an annual income of $50,000 to the respondent based on his past earnings and median income data, ordering him to pay $755 per month in child support and 35% of section 7 expenses.

The applicant's claim for retroactive support was dismissed without prejudice as it could not be granted on a temporary motion.

In a child protection proceeding, the court held a focused hearing to determine whether three children were First Nations, Inuk or Métis children under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The court found that the two older children were First Nations children based on their own self-identification and ancestral connection through their father.

The youngest child, who had a different father and no paternal Indigenous ancestry, was also found to be a First Nations child based on her sibling relationship with the older children, despite the court's concerns regarding the mother's standalone claim of Indigenous identity.

The mother brought a motion to enforce prior orders for parenting time and family reconciliation therapy, alleging the father alienated their 17-year-old daughter.

The daughter, represented by the Office of the Children's Lawyer, adamantly refused to participate in therapy or see her mother.

The court dismissed the mother's motion to enforce the orders, finding it would be futile and counterproductive given the child's age and entrenched views.

However, finding the father partly responsible for the therapy's failure, the court ordered him to reimburse the mother for half the therapy costs as a sanction for non-compliance.

The parties, who separated in 2016, proceeded to a trial to resolve issues regarding parenting time, school choice, and child support for their two children.

The court declined to adopt the OCL's recommendation for sole decision-making to the mother, finding both parents capable but struggling with communication.

The court ordered a shared parenting schedule, with the children remaining at their current school and the father granted decision-making authority over school choice to provide stability.

Applying section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines, the court found that given the shared parenting arrangement and the parties' respective financial situations, no ongoing child support was payable by either party.

The parties resolved a motion regarding parenting time and decision-making by way of Temporary Minutes of Settlement.

Both parties subsequently sought costs of the motion.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $8,841.12, while the respondent sought $5,000.00.

The court found that neither party was entirely successful, as the settlement reflected a true compromise and neither party beat their respective offers.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs due to divided success.

The applicant father sought to vary a 2015 parenting order to grant him primary care and sole decision-making responsibility of the parties' nine-year-old child, alleging the respondent mother engaged in parental alienation and unilaterally suspended his parenting time.

The mother sought to maintain the status quo and requested retroactive child support.

The court found both parties lacked credibility, noting the mother fabricated text message evidence and the father failed to exercise consistent parenting time or pay proper child support.

The court concluded it was in the child's best interests to remain in the mother's primary care with sole decision-making responsibility, subject to strict consultation requirements, while granting the father increased, regular parenting time.

The father was also ordered to pay $9,414 in child support arrears.

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant's claims for unjust enrichment and a constructive trust over a property.

The parties disputed when their romantic relationship ended, with the respondent claiming 2009 and the applicant claiming 2011.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and found no genuine issue requiring a trial, determining on the evidence that the relationship ended in January 2009.

Consequently, the applicant's claims, commenced in October 2020, were statute-barred under both the two-year and ten-year limitation periods.

The application was dismissed.

Counsel for the respondent in a family law proceeding brought an urgent motion to be removed as solicitor of record, citing a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing he had retained the broader law firm and wished for another lawyer at the firm to assume carriage of his file.

The court granted the motion to remove counsel, noting it could not order another member of the firm to take over the file, and directed counsel to provide the respondent with his file and a blank Settlement Conference Brief.

Supplementary reasons for judgment regarding child support.

The court fixed the respondent father's child support arrears at $8,699.57, including contributions to section 7 expenses.

Ongoing basic child support was ordered at $256 per month based on an imputed income of $30,000.

The court declined to order the father to pay life insurance premiums to secure support due to his modest financial means.

The father brought an interim parenting motion seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary residency of the parties' six-year-old child, with a specific concern that the mother had not enrolled the child in school.

The mother sought an adjournment to retain new counsel.

The court granted the adjournment for the broader parenting issues but decided the urgent issue of school attendance.

Finding that in-person schooling is presumed to be in a child's best interests and noting the child's need for socialization and speech therapy, the court granted the father temporary decision-making authority over education and ordered the child to be immediately enrolled in in-person learning.

The applicant mother brought a motion for shared parenting of the parties' three-year-old child following the tragic drowning death of their younger child.

After the accident, the respondent father unilaterally assumed sole care of the surviving child and restricted the mother to supervised parenting time, alleging she was responsible for the death and was an unfit parent.

The court relied on evidence from a Children's Aid Society worker who investigated the family and found no child protection concerns regarding the mother.

The court strongly criticized the father's resort to self-help and his derogation of the mother, ultimately granting the mother's motion for primary care during the week with the father having weekend parenting time.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking the return of the parties' two children from Quebec to Ontario, sole decision-making responsibility, and primary residence.

The respondent mother argued that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction and that the motion was not urgent.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the children were habitually resident in Ontario prior to their removal to Quebec, thereby granting Ontario jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court ordered temporary joint decision-making responsibility but adjourned the issues of primary residence and the return of the children to allow the parties to adduce further evidence.

The applicant sought a one-half beneficial interest in a home solely owned by the respondent, claiming she contributed over $200,000 towards its purchase and extensive renovations during their relationship.

The respondent admitted unjust enrichment but argued the applicant was only entitled to a monetary award based on value received.

The court found the parties were engaged in a joint family venture and that the applicant's contributions were investments, not loans.

Concluding that a monetary award would be unfair and difficult to quantify, the court imposed a constructive trust granting the applicant a 50% beneficial ownership in the home.

In a child protection proceeding, the respondent father sought costs against the respondent mother for her failure to file required documents for a Trial Scheduling Conference.

The court declined to award costs, noting that under Rule 17(18) of the Family Law Rules, costs at a conference are discouraged unless the failure to file documents contributed to the conference being unproductive.

Since the conference successfully set the matter down for trial, and considering the mother's limited financial means as the primary caregiver for the children, an award of costs was not in the interests of justice.

The mother and father, both self-represented, sought final orders regarding parenting time, exchanges, and section 7 expenses for their two children.

The mother requested continued supervised parenting time for the father due to a history of family conflict and the children's separation anxiety.

The court found no evidence of abuse or risk to the children and ordered a gradual transition to unsupervised overnight parenting time.

To mitigate conflict, exchanges were ordered to take place at a supervised access centre for eight months.

The father was also ordered to contribute proportionally to childcare and health expenses, and pay a lump sum for extracurricular activities.

The moving party father brought a motion for interim primary residential care of the parties' three children, alleging that the responding party mother had alienated the children from him following a child protection intervention.

The mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the motion, arguing that the children wished to remain with the mother and that a forced separation could be traumatic.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding that the facts regarding the family's history and the allegations of alienation were highly contested and could not be resolved on a written record alone.

The court maintained the status quo of the mother having interim sole custody, ordered reunification counselling, and expedited the matter for trial.

The applicant mother brought a motion to terminate or supervise the respondent father's access to their child following allegations of sexual abuse.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking to enforce the existing final order, make-up access, and a finding of contempt against the mother.

The Children's Aid Society investigated and did not verify the allegations.

The court found the evidentiary record insufficient to make findings of sexual abuse and ordered that the father's unsupervised access continue, including limited overnight access.

The court also appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to represent the child and dismissed the balance of both motions.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim relief seeking increased access to the children, the sale of the matrimonial home, and the return of belongings.

The respondent father opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion for retroactive and ongoing child support.

The court granted the mother's request for increased access, finding it in the children's best interests to spend roughly equal time with both parents.

The court also ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home to allow the mother to secure appropriate housing.

The mother was ordered to pay interim child support, including arrears, given her employment and shared custody arrangement.

The applicant brought a motion for contempt of court after the respondent refused to return the children following a summer access visit.

The contempt motion was resolved substantially on consent after the respondent retained counsel.

The court treated the motion as one to enforce a court order.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $2,883.12.

The court found the respondent's conduct necessitated the motion but declined to award substantial indemnity costs due to the consent resolution.

Costs were fixed at $1,700 payable by the respondent.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim sole custody and to restrict the respondent father's access to supervised visits, citing his public anti-masking behaviour and denial of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for increased, unsupervised access.

The court found that the respondent's intentional flaunting of public health guidelines and boastful anti-masking behaviour put the children at risk.

Applying the Ribeiro framework, the court granted the applicant interim sole custody and ordered that the respondent's access be supervised to ensure compliance with COVID-19 precautions.