Family and Matrimonial Law

The Children's Aid Society brought a protection application seeking Crown wardship of a five-year-old child with severe behavioural and special needs.

The mother did not participate in the trial.

The father, who had an extensive criminal record and had been absent for most of the child's life, sought placement of the child in his care under a supervision order.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's inability to manage the child's extreme aggressive behaviours.

The court rejected the father's plan, finding he lacked insight into the child's complex needs and had failed to complete recommended programs in a timely manner.

The child was made a Crown ward with supervised access granted to the father.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision staying his motion to change a final family law order due to his egregious and exceptional non-compliance with prior court orders.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's exercise of discretion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, finding the appellant had willfully ignored numerous obligations, including support, tuition, life insurance, and costs.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to specify the exact conditions the appellant must satisfy to lift the stay and proceed with his motion to change.

The Court also confirmed that a prior $10,000 costs award was a debt under a support order not released by the appellant's bankruptcy.

The applicant wife sought to set aside Minutes of Settlement and advance a claim for equalization of net family property.

However, less than a year after signing the settlement, the wife made an assignment in bankruptcy.

The court held a trial of an issue to determine whether the wife's equalization claim was valid post-bankruptcy.

The court found that the right to claim an equalization payment falls within the definition of property under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and vests in the trustee upon bankruptcy.

As the trustee had not assigned the right back to the wife, she lacked capacity to pursue the claim.

The equalization claim was dismissed.

The applicant father and respondent mother both sought sole custody of their five-year-old child.

The father had taken the child from the mother's care following a period where the mother struggled with substance abuse.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer recommended sole custody to the mother, noting her successful rehabilitation, stable housing, and the father's failure to facilitate access.

The court agreed, awarding sole custody to the mother and granting the father specified access.

The court also imputed minimum wage income to the intentionally unemployed father and ordered him to pay child support.

The applicant mother brought a motion to terminate her $2,400 monthly spousal support obligation to the respondent father.

Following the tragic death of their eldest son and the incarceration of their youngest son in the United States, the applicant incurred massive debts to secure the youngest son's release and fund his post-secondary education.

The respondent, who is legally blind and unemployable, opposed the motion.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the applicant's depleted assets and significant debt load.

Balancing the compensatory nature of the original support order with the applicant's reduced ability to pay and the statutory priority given to child support, the court declined to terminate support but reduced it to $1,100 per month.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for Crown wardship without access for two children.

The mother opposed the motion but failed to file responding materials and sought an adjournment, which was denied.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the mother's long-standing, unaddressed substance abuse and mental health issues, and her failure to engage with services.

Relying on expert assessments indicating the children required stability and specialized care, the court granted the motion, making the children Crown wards without access for the purpose of adoption.

The mother sought to relocate with the parties' two-year-old child from Ontario to Pennsylvania.

The father opposed the move, arguing it would unduly hamper his relationship with his son.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer recommended permitting the move.

The court rejected the OCL's recommendation, finding the mother had exaggerated the father's difficulties and had a history of thwarting access.

The court concluded the proposed move was not in the child's best interests as it would significantly compromise the father's access and relegate him to the role of a distant relative.

The applicant moved to enforce a term of a separation agreement allowing her to discharge a mortgage on her home at two-thirds of its face value.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought to set aside the agreement entirely, alleging the applicant had fundamentally breached multiple terms regarding access, child support enforcement, and mediation.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that significant factual disputes existed regarding the alleged breaches, making it inappropriate to enforce the settlement on a summary motion.

The respondent was ordered to continue paying child support while pursuing his application to set aside the agreement.

The parties separated after a 20-year common law relationship.

The applicant sought a share of the proceeds from the sale of the family home, which was registered solely in the respondent's name, claiming unjust enrichment due to her significant renovations and repairs.

The court found the applicant contributed equally to the property's value and awarded her half the net value.

The court also imputed income to the respondent due to intentional underemployment, calculating retroactive child support and spousal support.

The child support arrears were deemed satisfied by the respondent's payment of the home's carrying costs, and ongoing spousal support was ordered at $1,000 per month.

The applicant father was successful on interim custody motions and sought costs.

Despite the presumption of costs for the successful party under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court declined to award costs.

The court noted the significant financial disparity between the parties, as the applicant is a high-earning physician and the respondent is a full-time student financially dependent on him.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

In an uncontested trial, the applicant mother sought sole custody, retroactive and ongoing child support, and section 7 expenses for the parties' two children.

The respondent father had minimal contact with the children and paid minimal support since separation.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, imputed income to the father based on his 2014 earnings adjusted for inflation, and ordered him to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, as well as his proportionate share of section 7 expenses.

The mother was also awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after a long marriage.

The court determined three main issues: child support for their 18-year-old son, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the adult son remained a dependent child due to emotional difficulties despite not attending school full-time, ordering ongoing child support.

The court imputed income to both parties and ordered the father to pay ongoing spousal support of $2,384 monthly.

To satisfy the equalization payment and provide stability for the son, the court ordered the matrimonial home vested in the mother, with the jointly owned rental property to be sold.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 12-year marriage.

The applicant sought a constructive trust over the matrimonial home to capture its post-separation increase in value, equalization of net family property, child support, and spousal support.

The court dismissed the constructive trust claim, finding a prior agreement provided a juristic reason for the respondent to retain the post-separation increase in value.

However, the court ordered the respondent to pay over $120,000 in equalization, significant arrears for child and spousal support, and ongoing spousal support, finding the respondent and his family members lacked credibility regarding alleged debts and financial contributions.

Following a two-day family law trial, the respondent sought costs of $9,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court noted that while the respondent was more successful on issues such as retroactive child support and the date of separation, the applicant also had some success and the respondent's handling of a joint line of credit made the trial inevitable.

Recognizing the applicant's decision to put the children first rather than pursue other financial strategies, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' two-year-old child in an uncontested trial.

The respondent father, who had been deported to Nigeria, did not appear but had previously mailed an Answer requesting custody when the child turns ten and access in the interim.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act and the Children's Law Reform Act.

Finding that the mother had been the sole caregiver since birth and the father had no involvement, the court granted sole custody to the mother with reasonable access to the father.

The applicant sought a declaration that she was the sole beneficial owner of a property legally owned by the respondent, her friend, to prevent the respondent's former spouse from selling the property to enforce a family law judgment.

The applicant claimed an oral agreement existed where the respondent held the property in trust because she could not obtain a mortgage.

The court found insufficient evidence of a 100% trust but determined that both parties contributed to the purchase price.

Applying the presumption of a purchase money resulting trust, the court declared the applicant held a 60% interest and the respondent held a 40% interest in the property.

The applicant brought a motion to change a previous support order, arguing a material change in circumstances due to a change in employment and reduction in income.

The respondent opposed, seeking to impute income to the applicant, retroactive section 7 expenses, and a finding of contempt regarding the division of household contents.

The court found a material change in circumstances and adjusted child and spousal support for 2016, 2017, and ongoing from 2018 based on the applicant's actual and projected incomes.

The court declined to impute income, finding the applicant was not intentionally underemployed.

The court also dispensed with the respondent's consent to list a jointly owned cottage for sale, dismissed the contempt motion, and declined to order security for support.

The Children's Aid Society was involved with a special needs child who had been placed in the legal custody of a kin caregiver.

The sole issue at trial was the frequency of the mother's supervised access visits.

The mother sought weekly access, while the Society and the kin caregiver proposed access once every three weeks due to the child's fragile health, strict routine requirements, and the mother's history of inconsistent attendance and alcohol use.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Child and Family Services Act, the court ordered supervised access once every three weeks for two hours, with strict conditions regarding the mother's sobriety and attendance.

The parties separated after a 14-year relationship and contested custody of their 8-year-old child, as well as support and equalization.

The applicant father sought joint custody, while the respondent mother sought sole custody.

Relying on the recommendations of the Office of the Children's Lawyer and the child's expressed preferences, the court ordered joint custody, finding the mother's animosity toward the father would likely impede maximum contact if she were granted sole custody.

The court also imputed $15,000 of pre-tax corporate income to the father, equalizing the parties' incomes and resulting in no child or spousal support being payable.

Finally, the court determined the mother had no legal interest in the matrimonial home and could not claim half its mortgage as a debt.

The parties separated and resolved all issues except the primary residence of their two young children.

The applicant father sought to maintain the interim week-about shared parenting arrangement, while the respondent mother sought primary residence.

The court considered the mother's history of post-partum depression and the father's active involvement in parenting, including caring for their son who has epilepsy.

Finding that the children were thriving under the status quo and that both parents provided stable, loving homes, the court ordered the continuation of the week-about shared parenting schedule and joint custody.