Family and Matrimonial Law

The appellant sought to enforce letters of request from a Florida court to obtain documents from the former Ontario lawyers of his ex-wife and daughter for use in a Florida action for parental alienation.

The application judge dismissed the application on public policy grounds, finding it would interfere with solicitor-client privilege and client confidentiality.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the hearing was procedurally fair and the application judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing to enforce the letters of request because they sought presumptively privileged documents.

The moving party sought to quash her former spouse's appeal due to his ongoing and wilful breach of court orders requiring him to pay spousal support and arrears.

The Court of Appeal found the appellant's non-compliance to be deliberate, relentless, and indefensible.

The court exercised its discretion to quash the appeal, awarded full indemnity costs to the moving party, and ordered that the appellant be precluded from bringing any further proceeding before the court until he complies with all support obligations.

The moving party sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal a $40,000 costs award arising from an unsuccessful motion to remove the responding party's counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the underlying order was interlocutory and therefore appealable only to the Divisional Court with leave.

Furthermore, the costs award was under the $50,000 threshold, which also directs the appeal to the Divisional Court.

The appellant appealed a spousal support order of $125,000 per month following a 24-year marriage.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing the respondent's needs and means, misapplied the Halliwell principle for high-income earners, and erred in awarding indefinite support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the respondent's compensatory entitlement, needs, and means, and confirming that the trial judge properly conducted an individualized fact-specific analysis.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings in a family law application regarding child support for failing to comply with financial disclosure orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the remedy was not excessive given the appellant had breached six previous orders and received multiple warnings.

The court also upheld the motion judge's award of full recovery costs based on a finding of bad faith.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to change spousal and child support orders.

He argued a material change in circumstances due to deteriorating health and an inability to work as an insurance broker.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant was intentionally underemployed to avoid support obligations, noting that the medical evidence could have been presented at the original trial but was withheld as a trial strategy.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The parties separated in 2004 and entered into a separation agreement in 2005 requiring the respondent to pay spousal support.

The agreement included a material change clause and a retirement adjustment clause.

Following the respondent's retirement in 2016, he brought a motion to reduce spousal support.

The trial judge reduced the support payable, declining to impute income based on a 2009 early pension payout or to immediately impute maximum LIRA withdrawals.

The appellant appealed, arguing the trial judge failed to address her economic hardship and misapprehended the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or significant misapprehension of the evidence in the trial judge's assessment of the parties' circumstances.

The appellant appealed an order awarding retroactive and prospective spousal support to the respondent.

The appellant argued the order was a nullity because it was made under the Divorce Act after being severed from a divorce order, and alternatively, that the court lacked jurisdiction because the respondent had attorned to divorce proceedings in Alabama.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the support order was properly made under the Family Law Act and that the application judge correctly determined he had jurisdiction.

Costs of $12,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant father appealed a child support order where the trial judge imputed income based on inferences drawn from his lifestyle and the quantum of voluntary monthly support payments he had made.

The first-level appeal judge upheld the decision, using a gross-up of expenses to verify the imputed amount.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the second-level appeal, finding no reviewable error in imputing income where the payor failed to disclose his true income, and deferred to the lower courts' discretion on the quantum.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a trial judge's costs order made in favour of his former spouse.

The trial judge had ordered costs to be paid from funds held in court, noting the moving party's failure to meaningfully participate in the trial and the partial success of the responding party.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no strong grounds to interfere with the trial judge's discretionary costs order.

The appellant appealed a finding of contempt for failing to comply with a consent order requiring the parties to enroll their children in counselling to facilitate effective co-parenting.

The motion judge found beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant wilfully obstructed the counselling process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings or interpretation of the order.

The appellant appealed a trial decision upholding the validity of a marriage contract that waived property and spousal support rights, and awarding a $40,000 lump sum for spousal support.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the marriage contract was valid, noting the appellant chose not to obtain independent legal advice despite being warned by a paralegal.

However, the Court found the trial judge erred in calculating the quantum of spousal support by failing to consider imputing income to the respondent from his $5 million real estate holdings.

The appeal was allowed in part and the matter remitted to the Superior Court for a focused hearing on imputing income.

The appellant mother appealed a finding of contempt and the subsequent penalty imposed for her failure to comply with a final order regarding the respondent father's access to their children.

The motion judge found multiple, wilful breaches of the order, relying heavily on text messages where the appellant explicitly denied the court's authority over her parenting decisions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the contempt finding or the penalty, which included fines for failing to attend a cooperative parenting program.

The Court also dismissed the appellant's motion to adduce fresh evidence, noting it either could have been produced earlier or did not displace the motion judge's findings.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order requiring him to pay his former common-law spouse $75,000 for unjust enrichment and $561 in indefinite monthly spousal support.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding unjust enrichment and in awarding indefinite rather than transitional support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the test for unjust enrichment or her assessment of the respondent's contributions to the property.

The court also upheld the indefinite spousal support award as reasonable given the respondent's age, income potential, and the 17-year duration of the relationship.

The respondent was largely successful in defending her former husband's appeal and pursuing her cross-appeal.

She sought full recovery costs of $40,422.60.

The Court of Appeal awarded her costs of $38,000, ordering that 25% of the award be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office as it was proportionate to the support-related issues at stake.

The moving party sought to quash an appeal brought by the responding party from a motion judge's dismissal of a request to reconsider a costs order.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge's order refusing to reconsider the costs disposition was interlocutory, as it did not finally dispose of any substantive right.

Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and the appeal was quashed with costs awarded to the moving party.

The appellant mother appealed an order placing her two children in extended society care with no access.

The children, who are Métis, were apprehended due to exposure to domestic violence and adult sexual activity.

The Court of Appeal upheld the extended society care order, finding no error in the lower courts' assessment of the children's need for protection or the statutory time limits.

However, applying the Kawartha framework, the Court found the trial judge erred by placing the burden on the mother to prove access was beneficial.

The Court allowed the appeal in part, granting the mother monthly photograph access as it was in the children's best interests and would not impair adoption prospects.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal regarding spousal support, child support, and net family property, the respondent sought costs of $13,585 on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant suggested $10,000, citing modest success and unproven economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Court of Appeal fixed costs at $12,000 inclusive, noting the appeal was heard in writing, and ordered the costs enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office as a support order.

Following an appeal, the court issued a costs endorsement.

The respondent on appeal was awarded partial indemnity costs in the amount of $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's orders regarding prospective and retroactive spousal and child support, as well as the trial costs award.

The trial judge had imputed income to the respondent due to income fluctuations and denied retroactive support because the appellant's bankruptcy had relieved her of the tax debt that caused her financial hardship.

The Court of Appeal applied a deferential standard of review, finding no material error or serious misapprehension of the evidence by the trial judge.

The appeal was dismissed.