Family and Matrimonial Law

The respondent in the main action brought a motion for temporary spousal support and further financial disclosure.

The applicant opposed, arguing the parties were never spouses under the Family Law Act and that a previous $60,000 payment satisfied any obligation.

The court found the moving party established a prima facie case for support based on her residency in the responding party's home and financial dependence.

The court ordered the responding party to pay $1,600 monthly in temporary support based on an acknowledged income of $134,000.

On the disclosure issue, the court gave the responding party 30 days to engage an expert income analyst before mandating the extensive corporate disclosure requested.

Following a six-day trial regarding custody and school choice, the successful applicant mother sought full indemnity costs of $54,001.06.

The court found that the applicant's offers to settle did not trigger full recovery costs under Rule 18(14) because they included predetermined costs penalties.

The court also found that while the self-represented respondent's behaviour was unreasonable, it did not meet the high threshold for bad faith under Rule 24(8).

Balancing success, unreasonable behaviour, and proportionality, the court ordered the respondent to pay costs fixed at $32,000.

The respondent mother-in-law was successful at trial in defending against the applicant's claim of a resulting or constructive trust over the former matrimonial home.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $47,000 or partial indemnity costs of approximately $32,000.

The court considered the Family Law Rules factors, noting the applicant's reasonable behaviour, the lack of complexity of the claim against the mother-in-law, and the applicant's limited ability to pay as a self-represented custodial parent of three children.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $30,000, inclusive of prior costs orders, disbursements, and HST.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a 2004 custody and support order after the parties' child moved primarily into his care in May 2014.

The father sought child support from the mother retroactive to May 2014, while the mother argued for a later start date due to periods where the child returned to her care.

The court found the child did not spend the required 40 percent of time with the mother to trigger shared custody provisions, ordering the mother to pay child support from May 1, 2014.

The court maintained the 50/50 sharing of extraordinary expenses and ordered the father to pay a reduced lump sum of $3,500 for past expenses claimed by the mother.

The applicant, the deceased's spouse of 25 years, brought an application for dependant's relief under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The deceased had left the applicant 11 months before his death, moved in with the respondent, and changed his will and beneficiary designations to name the respondent as sole beneficiary.

The court found the applicant was a dependant and the deceased failed to make adequate provision for her support.

Applying the statutory factors, the court ordered that the applicant receive the life insurance proceeds paid to the respondent, half of a joint bank account, the deceased's RRSP funds, shares, and his interest in a business.

The mother, father, and the maternal aunt and uncle (the McCormicks) brought competing motions regarding the residence of the three children.

The father, who shared joint custody with the McCormicks, sought permission to relocate with the children from London to Lindsay for employment.

The mother and the McCormicks opposed the move and sought to have the children placed in their care.

The court granted the father's motion to relocate, finding it in the children's best interests as it allowed the father to secure employment and remain the primary caregiver, subject to modifications in transportation and access schedules.

The motions by the mother and the McCormicks were dismissed.

The applicant sought costs of $20,000 following a motion for disclosure where success was divided, and the respondent's cross-motion for bifurcation was dismissed.

The respondent proposed costs of $7,500 payable in the cause.

The court declined to order costs in the cause, noting that bifurcation is a process, not an outcome.

After considering the factors under Rule 24(11), the lack of offers to settle, and the litigation conduct of both parties, the court awarded the applicant costs of $8,000 plus HST.

The applicant father sought costs following a motion in which he successfully obtained increased interim access time with his child and an order requesting the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The respondent mother opposed the motion and offered a settlement that was less than the relief granted.

The court found the father was the successful party and awarded him costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $3,500.

The moving party brought a motion to enforce Minutes of Settlement signed by the parties, and preferably to enforce an unsigned Separation Agreement.

The court found that the Minutes of Settlement were binding and in full force, as the responding party had already received over $2.1 million and monthly spousal support under its terms.

The court declined to enforce the unsigned Separation Agreement but settled the terms of the formal order enforcing the Minutes of Settlement.

The responding party was ordered to pay costs of $5,500.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for Crown wardship with access for the child.

The child had been in care for over four years following multiple apprehensions due to neglect and a physical incident involving the father's partner.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the child's continued need for protection and the disposition of Crown wardship, relying on a parenting capacity assessment that concluded the father and his partner lacked the ability to meet the child's needs.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the specific terms of access and ordered a focused trial on that issue.

The applicant wife sought spousal support and equalization of net family property following a 25-year relationship.

The court found that the matrimonial home, which had been transferred solely to the wife's name to shield it from the husband's creditors, was held in a resulting trust with each party owning a 50 percent interest.

The court declined to order an unequal division of net family property despite the husband's morally reprehensible conduct, finding it did not meet the high threshold of unconscionability.

The wife was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $107,540.28.

The court also found the wife entitled to compensatory spousal support, imputed the husband's income at $95,000, and ordered a lump sum spousal support payment of $96,064 to effect a clean break due to high acrimony.

The applicant brought a motion to find the respondent in contempt for failing to comply with a prior court order requiring him to sign a listing agreement for the sale of their jointly owned property.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to consolidate the civil partition action with a family law application he commenced in another jurisdiction.

The court applied the three-pronged test for contempt and found the respondent deliberately breached the clear and unequivocal order beyond a reasonable doubt, though he purged his contempt by signing the agreement in court.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding the two actions dealt with distinct issues and consolidation would cause unfair delay and expense.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and child support for the parties' three-year-old child.

The respondent father sought joint custody and argued against paying the Table amount of child support, claiming he had the child for at least 40% of the time under a shared parenting arrangement.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant, finding that the parties were unable to communicate effectively and that the respondent had demonstrated a lack of responsibility and maturity.

On the issue of child support, the court calculated the respondent's parenting time and found it fell short of the 40% threshold required under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The court also imputed income to the respondent due to his history of losing employment due to conflict and tardiness, and ordered him to pay the Table amount of child support based on the imputed income, along with arrears.

The parties filed costs submissions following an interim spousal support motion.

The party seeking support sought $15,000 in costs, claiming 68 hours of work at $350 per hour, while the opposing party argued each side should bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found the party seeking support was the successful party but noted the issues were not complex and the time claimed was disproportionate to the amounts in issue and the parties' financial means.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the principle of proportionality, the court fixed the costs award at $4,500 inclusive of disbursements.

The applicant brought a motion to validate service of family law proceedings on the respondent, who resides in China.

The court considered whether the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents applies to Ontario family law proceedings.

The court held that the Family Law Rules adequately cover service and that Rule 17.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandates compliance with the Hague Convention, does not apply.

In the alternative, the court found that the respondent's financial abandonment of his family and his use of the Convention to evade service constituted extreme circumstances justifying an exception to the Convention.

Service was validated.

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion to adjourn the trial scheduled for January 2016 to April or May 2016.

The moving party argued that an adjournment was necessary due to outstanding expert reports, incomplete questioning, and a pending section 30 assessment report.

The responding party opposed the motion, citing prejudice and the moving party's failure to comply with previous timetables.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party had twice consented to trial dates and failed to comply with the associated timetables, and that further delay would prejudice the responding party and the parties' child.

During a family law trial, the respondent sought to qualify a social worker as an expert in family therapy and parental alienation.

The court refused to qualify the proposed expert, finding she failed to meet the threshold requirements of admissibility under the Mohan framework and lacked the requisite independence and impartiality required by the White Burgess test.

The court noted the proposed expert viewed herself as an advocate for the children, failed to comply with the Family Law Rules regarding expert duties, and demonstrated bias in her report.

However, the court admitted video interviews of the children conducted by the proposed expert, subject to later submissions on their weight.

The applicant moved for judgment based on a settlement agreement regarding custody and access, as well as interim spousal and child support.

The respondent argued the settlement was not binding because it did not comply with Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that while the correspondence did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 18, it constituted a binding agreement under general contract principles.

The court ordered final custody and access based on the agreement, awarded interim compensatory spousal support retroactive to the date the application was issued, and determined the parties' incomes for support calculations.

The husband sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that refused his motion to sever his claim for divorce from the wife's claims for corollary relief.

The motion judge had refused severance on the basis that the husband's failure to make financial disclosure prejudiced the wife, and severing the divorce could prejudice her potential claims against his estate in the event of intestacy.

The court found no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, as the potential loss of intestacy rights and insurance coverage constituted legal disadvantage under Rule 12(6) of the Family Law Rules.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The applicant bankrupt brought a motion arguing that a previous family law costs award of $25,280, which was ordered to survive bankruptcy, was released because the respondent creditor failed to file a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceedings.

The court held that while the failure to file a proof of claim prevented the respondent from sharing in the bankruptcy distribution, it did not release the debt under section 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The costs order survived the bankruptcy discharge, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the motion.