Family and Matrimonial Law

The parties separated after a short marriage.

The wife sought damages for assault and battery, and for invasion of privacy after discovering the husband had surreptitiously installed a hidden camera in their bedroom and bathroom.

The court awarded the wife $5,000 for assault and battery and $15,000 for intrusion upon seclusion.

The court also ordered the wife to pay an equalization payment of $14,916.57 to the husband, finding no grounds for an unequal division.

The husband was ordered to pay $5,600 in retroactive spousal support and ongoing support of $700 per month for two additional months before termination.

Following a motion on the admissibility of evidence in a family law arbitration, the successful applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis and costs thrown away due to the adjournment of the arbitration.

The court awarded significant costs for the motion, noting the complexity of the issues, but declined to order full recovery as neither party acted unreasonably.

The request for costs thrown away was dismissed because the interruption did not warrant such an order and the applicant relied on estimates rather than actual costs.

The parties engaged in a high-conflict 10-day trial over the custody and access of their nine-year-old daughter.

The mother sought sole custody, alleging the father had a history of domestic violence and alcohol abuse.

The father sought joint custody and equal time-sharing, alleging the mother was alienating him from the child and had mental health issues.

The court heavily criticized both parents for their relentless conflict and inappropriate behaviour during access exchanges.

The court rejected a flawed initial OCL report recommending joint custody and accepted a second OCL report recommending sole custody to the mother.

The mother was awarded sole custody, and the father's access was restricted to daytime visits until he completes court-ordered anger management and alcohol treatment programs.

The plaintiff commenced an action in Toronto for intrusion upon seclusion and other torts, alleging the defendant improperly obtained and disclosed information about her university enrollment during family litigation.

The defendant brought a motion to transfer the proceeding to London, while the plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendant to disclose the source of the information.

The court granted the transfer motion, finding that the holistic application of Rule 13.1.02 factors strongly favoured London, where both parties and most witnesses reside.

The court adjourned the plaintiff's motion to compel disclosure, holding that while the information is relevant and must be disclosed, piecemeal discovery should be discouraged and the issue should be addressed at examinations for discovery.

The respondent in a high-conflict family law proceeding brought a motion seeking the sale of the matrimonial home, carriage of the sale, exclusive possession, and financial disclosure.

The applicant sought an adjournment, which the court denied.

The court declined to order the immediate sale of the home or vary the existing exclusive possession order so close to trial, provided the applicant complies with a proposal to pay $20,000 monthly towards outstanding costs and $12,350 monthly for support and arrears.

The court also ordered the applicant to comply with outstanding financial disclosure requests.

At a Trial Management Conference, the court provided directions for an uncontested trial on financial issues following the striking of the applicant's pleadings.

The respondent was ordered to file a trial record, including an affidavit for the uncontested trial, and the trial was scheduled for February 2017.

The applicant was permitted to attend but prohibited from participating.

At a Trial Management Conference for custody and access issues, the self-represented applicant attempted to include financial issues in her brief.

The court noted that the applicant's claims regarding financial issues had been previously struck and she was prohibited from participating in the trial on those issues.

The court struck the irrelevant materials from her brief, set the witness lists and time estimates for the custody and access trial, and provided procedural directions for filing the trial record and form 35.1.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) brought a motion to set aside an ex parte order appointing it as Estate Trustee during Litigation for an intestate estate.

The PGT argued it should be a trustee of last resort and noted that it had not consented to the appointment, as required by the Public Guardian and Trustee Act.

The court found that appointing one of the disputing beneficiaries would escalate the conflict.

The court granted the motion, removed the PGT, and appointed a neutral estates lawyer as Estate Trustee during Litigation.

The applicant brought a motion to change child support and arrears.

A trial of an issue was ordered to determine where the parties' son was living between September 2010 and September 2013.

The court heard evidence from several witnesses and concluded that the son lived primarily with the respondent mother from September 2010 to November 2011, spent equal time with both parents from November 2011 to April 2012, and resided with his sister and the applicant from April 2012 to September 2013.

These findings will form the factual basis for the motion to change.

The applicant mother brought a motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, temporary child support, and temporary spousal support.

The parties had continued to reside together in the matrimonial home despite separating over five years prior, and both were burdened by significant consumer debt.

The court dismissed the motion for exclusive possession, finding no evidence of violence or that the children's best interests were compromised by the continued cohabitation.

The claims for temporary support were also dismissed as the respondent was already paying a large share of the family's expenses.

The applicant mother brought an emergency motion to immediately implement a clinical assessor's recommendation to change the primary residence of the child.

The motion was dismissed, and the respondent father sought costs.

The court found the applicant's litigation conduct to be reprehensible, noting she escalated attacks against the respondent and filed unreliable, inflammatory affidavits.

Applying the costs consequences of Rule 18 due to the respondent's reasonable offers to settle, the court awarded the respondent costs approaching full recovery, fixed at $20,000.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's unjust enrichment claim, the respondent sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

Before costs were decided, the applicant made an assignment in bankruptcy.

The respondent argued that the costs should be characterized as spousal support so they would survive bankruptcy and be enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The court rejected this argument, noting that spousal support was never an issue in the proceedings and retroactively characterizing the claims would be an inappropriate end run around the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court declined to fix costs, without prejudice to the respondent renewing her request if she obtains a declaration lifting the bankruptcy stay.

The respondent mother brought a motion to change a 2001 child support order, seeking to rescind or reduce approximately $64,000 in arrears.

She argued she was unable to earn the imputed income of $20,800, the children were no longer entitled to support, and the applicant father had prevented access.

The court found the mother failed to prove an inability to earn the imputed income and declined to reduce arrears on that basis or due to access issues.

However, the court found all three children had lost their entitlement to support on various dates between 2009 and 2015.

The court ordered the arrears to be recalculated to reflect the termination of support for each child, but declined to grant any further reduction or rescission of the remaining arrears, ordering them payable at $434 per month.

The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce a final trial judgment regarding child support, section 7 expenses, and access.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking to vary custody to joint custody, alter the access schedule, and obtain a section 9 offset for child support.

The court dismissed the father's requests to vary custody and access, finding no material change in circumstances.

The court established structured mechanisms for settling future access schedules and section 7 expenses to minimize conflict.

The father's claim of undue hardship regarding child support arrears was deferred to a subsequent hearing to allow for proper evidentiary records.

The applicant in a family law proceeding brought a motion for directions regarding the examination of the respondent and non-parties, and for a preservation order under s. 12 of the Family Law Act regarding a fleet of exotic cars.

The respondent argued the examinations should not proceed due to late service of the notice.

The court excused the minor procedural irregularity and ordered the examinations to proceed.

The court also granted the preservation order, finding the applicant had established a prima facie case for an equalization payment and that the respondent was transferring the exotic cars to a third-party corporation to put them beyond her reach.

Following a 34-year marriage, the applicant sought ongoing and retroactive spousal support.

The respondent conceded entitlement but argued income should be imputed to the applicant, who worked part-time at a grocery store.

The court declined to impute income, finding the applicant was making reasonable efforts given her limited work history and significant health issues, including epilepsy and post-concussive syndrome.

The court ordered ongoing spousal support of $1,750 per month and retroactive support commencing from the date the matrimonial home was sold.

The respondent husband brought a motion to change a final order for spousal support, seeking to terminate his $1,400 monthly payments due to his early retirement and the applicant wife's increased income.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on both parties' increased incomes and the husband's early retirement.

However, the court held that the wife was still entitled to support given the length of the marriage and her economic disadvantage.

Spousal support was reduced to $700 per month for 12 months, and thereafter to $1 per year until the husband turns 65, at which point it will terminate.

During a family law trial, the respondent sought to qualify his long-time accountant as an expert to provide opinion evidence on his income for spousal support purposes.

The applicant opposed the request on the basis that the evidence was not necessary and the accountant lacked independence.

The court applied the Mohan and White Burgess frameworks and concluded that the proposed expert evidence was not necessary.

Furthermore, the court found the accountant lacked specific expertise in support income determination and lacked the requisite independence and impartiality, having served as the respondent's accountant for nearly four decades.

The request to admit the expert opinion evidence was denied.

The applicant father brought a Hague Convention application seeking the return of the parties' child to Colorado.

The mother had travelled to Ontario with the child for a short visit but subsequently decided to remain.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in Colorado and wrongfully retained in Ontario.

However, the application was dismissed because the father's prolonged silence and failure to contact the child for several months constituted subsequent acquiescence to the retention under Article 13 of the Convention.

The applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment on its status review application, seeking Crown wardship without access for two young children.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing she needed more time to stabilize her mental health and substance abuse issues.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the mother's recent relapses demonstrated an inability to provide a permanent and stable home.

The court granted the motion, making the children Crown wards with no access, prioritizing their need for a permanent and stable placement.