Family and Matrimonial Law

The applicant father brought an urgent motion under Rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules prior to a case conference, seeking to address the respondent mother's relocation with their 20-month-old child.

The mother had moved from Ottawa to Brampton and subsequently ceased the agreed-upon week-about parenting schedule without providing the required 60 days' notice under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court granted the father leave to bring the motion, emphasizing that self-help remedies in child relocation are discouraged, and ordered the resumption of the week-about parenting schedule pending the full motion.

The children's aid society brought a motion for a temporary supervision order to place a four-year-old Indigenous child in the care of the mother pending trial.

The child had been residing with a non-relative kin caregiver for approximately two years.

The court applied the federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, noting its paramountcy over provincial legislation and its priority of placement for parents.

Finding that the mother had made significant progress in mitigating child protection concerns and that a return to her care was in the child's best interests, the court granted the motion and ordered the child placed with the mother subject to society supervision.

The applicant, who was terminally ill with ALS, brought a motion to sever the divorce from corollary relief and grant an immediate divorce to maximize pension survivor benefits for his children.

The respondent agreed to the divorce but sought security for outstanding and future child support, as the applicant had cancelled his life insurance contrary to their separation agreement.

The court granted the severance and immediate divorce, finding that the pension survivor benefits constituted reasonable arrangements for child support.

The court also ordered the applicant to temporarily designate the respondent as the beneficiary of his supplementary death benefit in trust to secure any outstanding child support obligations.

The respondent challenged the Ontario Superior Court's jurisdiction to make 2013 temporary child and spousal support orders, arguing neither party was ordinarily resident in Ontario for a year prior to the application.

The court agreed it lacked jurisdiction under the Divorce Act but found it had jurisdiction under the provincial Family Law Act.

The court upheld the validity of the 2013 orders and refused to order a retroactive refund.

However, because the parties obtained a valid divorce in Scotland in 2019, the court terminated the respondent's ongoing spousal support obligation prospectively.

The applicant mother brought a motion under the Hague Convention seeking the return of the parties' two children to Florida, alleging the respondent father wrongfully removed them to Toronto.

The parties had signed a separation agreement permitting a temporary relocation to Florida, conditional on the mother obtaining an E2 visa and U.S. health insurance by a six-month review date.

The mother failed to meet these conditions.

The court applied the hybrid approach to habitual residence and found the children remained habitually resident in Ontario.

The father's return of the children to Toronto was not wrongful as it accorded with the conditional terms of the separation agreement.

The application was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent.

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

The applicant was successful in setting aside the marriage contract and obtaining equalization and spousal support, while the respondent was successful in obtaining a finding of parental alienation and limiting spousal support.

The court found the applicant's alienating conduct amounted to bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

Balancing the divided success, the applicant's bad faith, and the respondent's excessive costs claims, the court ordered both parties to bear their own costs.

The respondent father brought a motion to change his child support obligations, relying on a reduction in income, the child's graduation, and an alleged verbal agreement.

During the hearing, the court noted significant gaps in the father's evidence regarding his employment, income, and the alleged agreement.

Despite the court offering an adjournment to allow the father to file additional evidence, he declined.

However, because the parties had not clearly articulated the specific relief requested, including the effective dates and calculations for imputed income, the court adjourned the motion to a full-day hearing to ensure the matter could be properly completed.

The children's aid society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a child, seeking to suspend the father's parenting time due to allegations of sexual abuse.

The society initially withheld the specific allegations and evidence from the parents and the Court, citing an ongoing police investigation.

The Court held that the society had no legal basis to withhold relevant evidence, emphasizing that fundamental fairness, the legislative framework, and Charter principles require full and early disclosure.

The Court strongly cautioned against proceeding ex parte or withholding evidence to protect a police investigation, noting the severe consequences of child protection proceedings.

Following a nine-week high-conflict parenting trial where the applicant father was wholly successful and the respondent mother was found in contempt and to have acted in bad faith, the court determined costs.

The father beat multiple offers to settle.

The court awarded the father costs on a full recovery basis for the trial and contempt motion, and partial recovery for pre-trial steps, fixing the total costs at $677,610 inclusive of HST and disbursements, to be set off against spousal support and equalization.

The applicant sought a declaration that a prior court order, which directed the respondent's share of matrimonial home sale proceeds be held in trust as security for spousal support claims, made her a secured creditor under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The respondent subsequently made an assignment in bankruptcy.

The court held that the prior order was merely a preservation order and did not create a secured creditor interest.

Consequently, the respondent's share of the proceeds vested in the Trustee in Bankruptcy, and a previous costs award paid to the applicant from those proceeds was set aside.

Following a trial in writing on family law issues, the applicant father sought full indemnity costs of $73,208.59.

The court found the father was largely successful on the main issues and the mother's behaviour was unreasonable, particularly regarding the choice of school and spousal support.

However, the father did not beat his offer to settle on all issues, precluding full indemnity costs.

The court also found the father's bill of costs to be excessive for a trial in writing with no cross-examination.

The court awarded the father partial indemnity costs fixed at $20,000 all inclusive.

The applicant father brought a motion to change his child and spousal support obligations retroactively to 2015 under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, citing a significant decline in his income.

The court granted the retroactive variation of child support, adjusting the amounts payable for the years 2015 to 2020 based on the father's actual income and the applicable provincial Child Support Guidelines.

However, the court dismissed the father's request to terminate spousal support, finding that the support was compensatory in nature, the maximum timeframe had not ended, and the mother continued to have a need for it.

Following a successful motion by the applicant mother to temporarily relocate to New Brunswick with the child, the parties submitted written arguments on costs.

The mother sought $36,377.24 on a full recovery basis, while the father argued each party should bear their own costs due to his offer to settle and financial strain.

The court found the mother's legal fees excessive and disproportionate.

Considering the father's severable offer to settle made two days before the hearing, the court awarded the mother $5,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Following a successful motion to impute income, the applicant sought costs of $5,198 on a full indemnity basis.

The respondent did not file responding materials but had previously rejected offers to settle.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful and presumptively entitled to costs.

Considering the applicant's offers to settle and the respondent's failure to engage in settlement discussions, the court awarded partial indemnity costs at the higher range, fixed at $3,600.

The applicant father brought a motion to have the parties' eight-year-old child return to in-person schooling during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent mother opposed, seeking to continue online learning due to her chronic auto-immune disease and the young age of her other children.

Applying the factors from Zinati v. Spence, the court found that while the child was not at increased risk, the significant risk of harm to the mother and younger siblings outweighed the benefits of in-person learning.

The court ordered the child to continue with online learning for the 2020/2021 school year.

The respondent husband brought a motion to compel the applicant wife to accept his offer to purchase the matrimonial home.

The wife opposed the motion, seeking to enforce a prior consent order that required the home to be listed for sale on the open market.

The court found that the husband's agreement to list the home was disingenuous and that he had unilaterally cancelled viewings to force the acceptance of his offer.

The husband's motion was dismissed, and the parties were ordered to comply with the prior consent order to list the property for sale.

Following a successful disclosure motion in a family law proceeding, the applicant sought full recovery costs of over $22,000, alleging bad faith and unreasonable behaviour by the respondent.

The respondent sought to deprive the applicant of costs and claimed her own costs.

The court found the applicant was primarily successful but that full recovery was not warranted, emphasizing that costs must remain reasonable and proportional.

The court awarded the applicant $12,000 in costs and declined to order enforcement through the Family Responsibility Office.

The parties resolved parenting issues prior to trial, leaving retroactive and ongoing child support in dispute.

The father, an IT professional, had previously paid support based on an unwritten 'rolling average' of his income.

After losing his job, he made significant RRSP withdrawals and reduced his support payments.

The court rejected the rolling average approach as it was not in writing, and included the RRSP withdrawals in the father's income for child support purposes, finding he failed to prove they were used primarily for legal fees.

The father was ordered to pay $15,184 in retroactive child support and $463 in retroactive section 7 expenses.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support.

The respondent argued the applicant was intentionally underemployed and sought to impute her income at $50,000.

The court found the applicant had established a prima facie case for spousal support but agreed she was intentionally underemployed, imputing her income at $30,000.

The respondent's income was determined to be $120,000.

The court ordered set-off child support of $1,257 per month and spousal support of $1,587 per month based on the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines for a shared parenting arrangement.

The applicant wife sought a divorce, equalization of net family property, and spousal support following a 42-year relationship.

The respondent husband had declared bankruptcy after receiving a large severance package and dissipating assets.

The court determined the valuation date, ordered an equalization payment of $78,430, and directed the transfer of 50% of the respondent's remaining LIRA and RRSP accounts to partially satisfy the equalization and support arrears.

The court also awarded a $25,000 lump sum for retroactive spousal support and $1,900 per month in ongoing spousal support due to the applicant's medical disability and the traditional nature of the marriage.