Family and Matrimonial Law

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that the child be made a Crown ward with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The child had been apprehended after suffering severe injuries while in the mother's care, leading to the mother pleading guilty to aggravated assault.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the mother's inability to safely parent and the child's need for permanency.

The motion was granted, and the child was made a Crown ward with no access.

The Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for Crown wardship without access for six children.

The children had been apprehended multiple times due to the mother's historic drug use, exposure to domestic violence, and deplorable housing conditions.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing she had a new stable relationship and a supervisory job.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the mother failed to demonstrate she had addressed the issues that led to the children's apprehension.

The court granted summary judgment, making all six children Crown wards without access to facilitate adoption.

The mother appealed an Ontario Court of Justice order granting custody of her 6-year-old child to the father and paternal grandparents.

The mother argued the trial judge erred by denying adjournments, misapprehending evidence of sexual abuse allegations, and granting custody to non-parties without mandatory police checks.

The Superior Court found no error in denying the adjournments or assessing the abuse allegations.

However, the court held the trial judge erred in law by granting custody to the grandparents without compliance with the Children's Law Reform Act and without sufficient evidence of the father's parenting plan.

The appeal was allowed, and the court ordered the filing of fresh evidence to determine the child's best interests.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings and for security for costs due to his failure to comply with multiple temporary orders regarding spousal support, costs, and financial disclosure.

The court held that leave was not required to bring the motion despite the case being listed for trial, as the motion sought to enforce compliance essential to a fair trial.

The court ordered the respondent to comply with specific disclosure and payment obligations within 21 days, failing which his pleadings would be struck.

The court also granted the applicant a $50,000 security interest in the respondent's property for costs.

The parties separated after a 22-year common law relationship.

The applicant sought retroactive and ongoing spousal support.

The respondent opposed, arguing the applicant was self-sufficient and had been terminated from her employment for cause.

The court found the applicant entitled to support given the length of the relationship and the income disparity.

However, because the applicant was terminated for cause, the court imputed income to her for a period equivalent to what her reasonable notice period would have been.

Spousal support was ordered based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, adjusted for the imputed income.

The applicant father sought joint custody and a shared parenting regime, while the respondent mother sought sole custody and to maintain the status quo access arrangement.

The court found that despite some conflict, the parents could communicate effectively and put the children's interests first.

Joint custody and a week-about shared parenting schedule were ordered.

The court also ordered ongoing child and spousal support, finding the mother was not intentionally underemployed, but denied her claim for retroactive spousal support.

Following a family law trial where both parties were self-represented, the applicant sought costs of $85,000 while the respondent proposed paying $4,833.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party and had behaved reasonably, whereas the respondent's behavior was unreasonable.

Applying the test from Fong v. Chan, the court determined the applicant was entitled to a moderate allowance for the opportunity cost of her time spent preparing for and conducting the trial.

The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $20,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' six-year-old child and restricted access for the respondent father, arguing that his acquired brain injury and past conduct posed safety risks.

The parties had previously executed a separation agreement providing for joint custody.

The Superior Court of Justice found no material change in circumstances to justify altering the joint custody arrangement, noting the mother had contrived conflict and unjustifiably restricted the father's access.

The court upheld joint custody, expanded the father's access schedule to alternating weekends and shared holidays, and ordered the father to repay funds he had misappropriated from the child's education account.

The father brought an urgent motion to prevent the mother from relocating with their two daughters to the Ottawa area.

The mother sought to rescind a previous order prohibiting the move and ordering an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) update.

The court found that a material change in circumstances had occurred since the last custody order, including the mother's undisclosed autoimmune illness and the special needs of one of the children.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz framework, the court held there was insufficient evidence regarding the proposed new environment to determine the children's best interests.

The court denied the relocation pending a full hearing, confirmed the order for an OCL update, and ordered that if the mother moves, the father shall have immediate custody.

Following a successful motion regarding the children's schooling, child care, and telephone access, the applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity and full indemnity basis.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded or that they should be limited to a partial indemnity basis from the date the amended notice of motion was served.

The court found the applicant was successful and had made an offer to settle that met the requirements of Rule 18(14).

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a substantial indemnity basis from the date the assessor's report was received, fixed at $3,500 plus disbursements and HST.

The parties separated after a 19-year marriage.

The respondent claimed compensatory spousal support, arguing he suffered economic disadvantage while the applicant pursued her master's degree, which led to a significant increase in her income.

The court dismissed the spousal support claim, finding no economic disadvantage to the respondent.

The court also resolved disputes over the children's primary residence for child support purposes, ordered pro-rata sharing of section 7 extraordinary expenses, and determined the equalization of net family property, noting the respondent's failure to disclose certain assets.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim joint custody of the parties' three-year-old child, as well as determinations on child and spousal support.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for interim sole custody, retroactive and ongoing child support for both the parties' child and her older child from a previous relationship, and retroactive and ongoing spousal support.

The court granted interim sole custody to the mother, finding that the parties' inability to communicate and the child's lack of overnight visits with the father militated against joint custody.

The court ordered the father to pay ongoing child support for the parties' child and spousal support, but dismissed the claims for retroactive support and child support for the older child, finding the father did not stand in loco parentis.

The parties, who agreed to joint custody of their nine-year-old son, proceeded to trial to resolve the parenting schedule during school holidays and issues regarding extracurricular activities.

The father works rotating shifts as a police officer, and the school-year schedule generally followed his days off.

The court ordered a summer schedule that accommodated the father's vacation picks while ensuring the child did not go more than nine days without seeing the other parent.

The court also established alternating schedules for major holidays and ordered that extracurricular activities, including ice hockey, require mutual consent if they impact both parents' time, with costs shared proportionately under section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support and an order directing the respondent husband to return to full-time employment and not retire during the course of the lawsuit.

The parties had previously signed a separation agreement resolving all issues, which was filed with the court.

The court treated the motion as an interim variation of a final spousal support order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate urgency, hardship, or that the continuation of the existing support order was incongruous and absurd.

The court also found no merit in ordering the respondent not to retire, noting that imputation of income could be addressed at trial.

The respondent father brought a motion for temporary orders regarding custody, access, child support, and financial issues including carrying costs of the matrimonial home and an equalization payment.

The court ordered temporary joint custody with the children's primary residence remaining with the father, and granted the mother generous access.

The mother was ordered to pay interim child support and a proportionate share of Section 7 expenses.

The financial claims regarding the matrimonial home and equalization were adjourned to trial as they presented genuine issues requiring adjudication on proper evidence.

The plaintiff brought a claim for unjust enrichment against the defendant, seeking $300,000 for renovations he allegedly performed on her properties during a purported 34-year cohabitation.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claim.

The court found that the plaintiff's evidence was contradictory, noting he had previously testified under oath at his criminal trial for harassing the defendant that their relationship was casual and he was married to someone else.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the defendant provided overwhelming evidence that she solely owned and financed the properties, and the plaintiff was compensated for minor work with room and board.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The moving party father brought a motion to change child support, section 7 expenses, private school tuition obligations, spousal support arrears enforcement, and access travel costs.

The court declined to impute income to the father, setting ongoing child support based on his actual reduced income.

The court ordered the father to pay his proportionate share of valid section 7 expenses (dental and tutoring) based on historical incomes, but dismissed claims for summer camps and other extracurriculars lacking consent or proof of necessity.

The father's requests to vary his 50% contribution to private school tuition, suspend enforcement of spousal support arrears due to bankruptcy, and share access travel costs were all dismissed.

A 14-year-old applicant commenced an application for child support against her alleged biological father, seeking private school tuition.

The respondent relied on a 1999 agreement with the applicant's mother settling child support on a final basis.

The parties brought multiple interim motions.

The court ordered that the parties be referred to by initials to protect the respondent's children, required the applicant to appoint a litigation guardian, and ordered the applicant and her mother to attend for questioning.

The court dismissed the applicant's motions for interim disbursements, temporary child support, and summary judgment, finding no immediate need for support and that the enforceability of the 1999 agreement was a genuine issue for trial.

The applicant father sought to vary a 2009 custody and access order to a joint custody 3-4-4-3 shared parenting schedule.

The respondent mother sought to maintain the status quo where the child resided primarily with her and the father had access every second weekend.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the mother's relocation and new family dynamics.

However, applying the best interests of the child test, the court dismissed the father's request for shared custody, noting the high conflict between the parents, the child's strong bond with the mother, and the significant travel time required for the child to attend school from the father's residence.

The status quo was maintained with minor adjustments to access.

The parties separated in 2005 and have three children whose living arrangements shifted between the parents over several years.

The father, who formed a new blended family, failed to pay court-ordered support and accumulated arrears.

The parties attempted to settle the ongoing and retroactive support issues by agreeing to waive child support in exchange for fixed spousal support, but the agreement resulted in adverse tax consequences for the mother.

The court set aside the settlement regarding child support, finding it cannot be bargained away, and ordered retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support based on the parties' actual incomes and the Guidelines.

The father's arrears were converted into a monetary judgment enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.