Family and Matrimonial Law

The parties separated and negotiated a separation agreement.

The respondent's counsel placed the executed agreement in escrow pending review of its commercial components by corporate counsel.

The applicant sought to enforce the agreement, arguing the escrow condition was satisfied or waived.

The court found that the respondent's corporate counsel did review the agreement and provided advice, satisfying the condition.

Furthermore, the court implied a term that the escrow condition had to be satisfied within 21 days, preventing the respondent from holding the agreement in limbo indefinitely.

The separation agreement was declared valid and enforceable.

The applicants, who are the legal custodians of two children, sought retroactive and ongoing child support from the respondent biological parents.

The respondents failed to provide financial disclosure and were noted in default, allowing the matter to proceed as an uncontested trial.

The court found the applicants were entitled to child support as they had demonstrated a settled intention to treat the children as their own.

The court imputed minimum wage incomes to both parents and ordered them to pay ongoing and retroactive child support, along with costs.

The parties separated after a brief marriage and sought orders regarding parenting, child support, and spousal support for their six-year-old child.

The mother withdrew her initial request to relocate to Germany.

The court ordered joint decision-making responsibility, with the mother having final decision-making authority subject to certain limitations, and granted the mother primary residence with the father having parenting time on alternate weekends and one overnight per week.

The father was ordered to pay $605 per month in child support and $150 per month in indefinite spousal support, subject to review.

The father's claim for retroactive reimbursement of spousal support was dismissed, though a minor credit for child support overpayment was granted.

The applicant mother sought a 50% trust interest in a family home held solely in the respondent father's name, following their divorce, reconciliation, and subsequent separation.

The home was purchased using significant funds gifted by the maternal grandmother.

The father argued the funds were a gift to him as compensation for reconciling.

The court rejected the father's argument, finding the funds were gifted to the mother.

The court held that the father was unjustly enriched by the mother's financial and non-financial contributions during their joint family venture.

The mother was awarded a 50% constructive trust interest in the home, valued at $487,608, plus $88,000 in costs.

The father's request to extend the limitation period for an equalization claim was dismissed.

Following a trial on parenting issues where the respondent mother was entirely successful, she sought costs of $13,217.06.

The applicant father opposed the costs, arguing the respondent's conduct was unreasonable and claiming financial hardship.

The court found the respondent was the successful party, had made multiple reasonable early offers to settle, and that her legal fees were highly reasonable.

Conversely, the court found the applicant's conduct unreasonable, noting he pursued aggressive and unsupported allegations at trial.

The court ordered the applicant to pay costs fixed at $13,000, representing close to full indemnity.

The father initiated an application for the return of the child to Qatar but subsequently abandoned the proceedings.

The mother proceeded with an uncontested trial seeking decision-making responsibility, child and spousal support, equalization of net family property, and a restraining order.

The court found it had jurisdiction as the child was habitually resident in Ontario.

The court refused to recognize a Qatari divorce obtained by the father without notice to the mother.

The court imputed an annual income of $400,000 to the father due to his failure to provide financial disclosure.

The mother was awarded sole decision-making responsibility, supervised parenting time for the father, child support, spousal support, an equalization payment of over $1.4 million, a freezing order on the father's assets, and a restraining order.

The Father brought a motion to change previous parenting orders, seeking primary residence and final decision-making authority, and opposing the Mother's planned relocation to Australia with the children.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the Mother's unsubstantiated allegations of abuse against the Father, which led to CAS involvement, and a complete breakdown in communication.

The court determined it was not in the children's best interests to relocate to Australia, as they required stability and there were serious concerns the Mother would not support their relationship with the Father.

The Father was granted primary residence and final decision-making authority, while the Mother was granted graduated unsupervised parenting time.

The applicant moved to set aside a final order that terminated her spousal support, claiming she had no notice of the respondent's motion to change.

The court found that the respondent had obtained an order for substituted service and had served the applicant via her daughter and Facebook Messenger.

The court concluded that the applicant was either ignoring the proceedings or willfully blind to them.

Applying the Mountain View Farms factors, the court held that the applicant failed to provide a plausible explanation for her default and did not establish an arguable case on the merits, as she had significant assets and the support had been paid for 19 years.

The motion to set aside the order was dismissed.

Following the death of the applicant in a family law proceeding, the Estate sought to continue the application for equalization and compel the respondent to produce expert reports valuing her corporate assets.

The respondent moved for security for costs, arguing the Estate was insolvent and the litigation was primarily driven by the Estate's counsel to recover unpaid fees.

The court ordered the Estate to post $5,000 in security for costs, finding that the Estate resided outside Ontario and had no assets in the province.

The court also ordered the respondent to produce expert reports to substantiate the corporate values claimed in her net family property statement.

The parties separated after a five-year marriage.

The mother sought retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found that the father engaged in monumental and self-serving financial nondisclosure regarding his businesses in Canada and Nigeria.

Drawing a strong adverse inference, the court imputed the father's income at $130,000 for most years due to intentional underemployment and hidden income.

The father was ordered to pay child support and indefinite spousal support at the high end of the SSAG range, along with a substantial equalization payment.

The applicant father brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the respondent mother's motion to change a final consent parenting order.

The mother sought joint decision-making responsibility and shared parenting time, arguing her mental health had improved.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, as the mother failed to provide admissible evidence of a material change in circumstances since the original order.

The summary judgment motion was granted, the motion to change was dismissed, and the mother was ordered to seek leave before commencing any further motions to change.

The applicant sought to confirm and enforce a provisional child support order made in the United Kingdom against the respondent residing in Ontario.

The court found there was insufficient evidence on the record to determine whether the provisional order should be confirmed, particularly regarding retroactive support.

The court adjourned the matter and ordered the respondent to file the required financial forms and tax returns, and permitted the applicant to file a reply affidavit.

The parties brought competing motions regarding the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The father sought exclusive possession, while the mother, who resided in the home with the children, sought partition and sale.

The court dismissed the father's claim for exclusive possession, finding no basis for it.

The court granted the mother's request for partition and sale, noting the prima facie right to sale, the unsustainable carrying costs, and the lack of prejudice to the father.

The court also ordered that the mother receive 50% of the net proceeds of the sale immediately, with the remainder held in trust.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's Answer and vest the matrimonial home in her name due to the respondent's persistent non-compliance with multiple court orders.

The respondent had previously been found in contempt, jailed for 30 days, and claimed to have burned over $1 million in cash to avoid paying the applicant.

The court found the respondent's conduct egregious and struck his Answer regarding financial issues, allowing the applicant to proceed to an uncontested trial on those matters.

The court also granted a vesting order transferring the matrimonial home to the applicant to secure her interests against the respondent's anticipated future non-compliance.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary an interim order to remove the requirement that he facilitate daily Facetime calls between the respondent mother and the child during his extended holiday parenting time.

The mother opposed the motion and sought additional relief, including make-up parenting time.

The court found that while the mother's previous contempt constituted a material change in circumstances, the father failed to demonstrate that eliminating the calls was in the child's best interests.

Both the father's motion and the mother's requests for additional relief were dismissed.

The parties, parents of two children, sought a determination on decision-making responsibility, holiday schedules, retroactive child support, and section 7 expenses following a high-conflict separation.

The court ordered that the respondent father have final decision-making responsibility for education, while the applicant mother have final decision-making responsibility for medical issues, including the authority to have the children vaccinated against Covid-19.

The court found the respondent did not meet the 40% shared custody threshold under section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and ordered him to pay $25,050 in retroactive child support.

Claims for section 7 expenses were largely dismissed due to a lack of consultation, though a small amount for tutoring was awarded.

Following an eight-day family law trial where the mother was the more successful party, the court determined issues of interest and costs.

The parties consented to pre-judgment interest at 1.8% and post-judgment interest at 2%.

The mother sought costs of approximately $188,000 on a full indemnity basis, citing the father's unreasonable behaviour and her offers to settle.

The court found both parties engaged in some unreasonable behaviour and that the mother's offers did not trigger the cost consequences of Rule 18.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court fixed costs payable by the father at $55,000.

The parties brought competing motions regarding parenting and child support for their three-year-old child.

The respondent father sought to vary an interim parenting order to a shared 2-2-3 schedule based on an untested Section 30 assessment report, while the applicant mother sought child support and contribution to daycare expenses.

The court dismissed the father's request for shared parenting, finding it premature and noting the mother had not received the full assessment file, but slightly expanded the father's parenting time.

The court ordered the father to pay child support based on an income of $111,801, which included banked vacation pay, and to pay 69% of daycare expenses after imputing an income of $50,000 to the mother due to a lack of medical evidence supporting her disability claim.

The respondent father brought an emergency motion in Ontario to recognize and enforce parenting orders made by the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

The applicant mother had relocated to Ontario with the children but repeatedly refused to comply with the BC orders regarding the father's summer parenting time.

The court found that the BC court had jurisdiction and that none of the exceptions under s. 41 of the Children's Law Reform Act applied.

The court recognized the BC orders, authorized police enforcement to apprehend the children, and awarded costs to the father on a full indemnity basis due to the mother's persistent disobedience.

The self-represented applicant mother sought costs of $160,872 after successfully obtaining an order permitting her to move with the child to New York.

The respondent father argued each party should bear their own costs.

The court found the applicant was the successful party, had made a reasonable offer to settle, and had behaved more reasonably than the respondent.

Applying the principles for awarding costs to self-represented litigants, the court set an hourly rate of $100 for the applicant's time and awarded her $22,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST.