Family and Matrimonial Law

The respondent moved for an order under Rule 61.06 for security for costs of the appellant's family law appeal.

The motion judge reviewed the grounds of appeal, which primarily challenged the trial judge's findings of fact regarding spousal support, imputed income, and business valuation.

Finding no arguable error of law and concluding the appeal was likely frivolous and vexatious, the motion judge also determined the appellant had insufficient liquid assets in Ontario to cover potential costs.

The motion was granted, and the appellant was ordered to post $20,000 in security for costs.

The appellants appealed an order voiding transfers of funds used to purchase two condominiums, which were found to be fraudulent conveyances intended to defeat the respondent's claims for spousal and child support arrears.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the badges of fraud to shift the evidential burden, nor in his assessment of fraudulent intent at the time of the transactions.

A motion to introduce fresh evidence was also dismissed for failing to meet the Palmer test.

The appellant mother appealed a Superior Court decision that dismissed her appeal of a summary judgment order granting Crown wardship of her two children with no access.

The mother alleged ineffective assistance of counsel on the summary judgment motion and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the appeal judge's conclusion that motion counsel performed competently and followed instructions.

The Court also denied the admission of fresh evidence, noting it was an attempt to re-litigate the case and would not have changed the outcome.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Crown wardship order.

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his motion to vary a final custody order to implement a week-about residential schedule.

The trial judge found no material change in circumstances since the order was made.

On appeal, the father argued the mother's concession of one extra day of access constituted an acknowledgment of a material change, and that his changed employment circumstances warranted a variation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the mother's concession was contemplated by the original order and did not constitute a material change, and found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the father's employment changes.

The mother's motion to adduce fresh evidence was also denied.

The parties separated after a 15-year marriage.

The trial judge granted the respondent a 50 per cent beneficial interest in the matrimonial home on a resulting trust and dismissed the appellant's claims for unequal division of net family property and retroactive support.

The appellant appealed, seeking an interest in the respondent's RRSP and retroactive support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had not pleaded the RRSP trust claim at trial and that the trial judge made no errors in denying retroactive support based on the parties' conduct and circumstances.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent a 45% interest in a commercial property via constructive trust, retroactive spousal support, and prejudgment interest on an equalization payment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the limitation period for the unjust enrichment claim was tolled due to the appellant's fraudulent concealment of the property's true ownership.

The court also upheld the awards for retroactive spousal support and prejudgment interest, noting the appellant's history of non-disclosure and failure to pay adequate support.

The appellant father appealed an order dismissing his motion to set aside an uncontested family law order.

The respondent mother had previously obtained custody, support, and equalization after the appellant failed to participate and was noted in default.

The motion judge dismissed the motion to set aside because the appellant failed to file a financial statement and there was no evidence the result would have been different.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the fundamental obligation to make financial disclosure and rejecting the appellant's attempt to rely on unsworn financial information filed for the first time on appeal.

The appellant appealed an order striking his motion to vary, arguing he had insufficient notice and should have been allowed to file materials.

The Court of Appeal dismissed this argument, noting the appellant had ample time and had failed to pay trial costs, a contempt fine, equalization, and failed to comply with disclosure obligations.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to delete a requirement that the appellant prove payment of all support obligations up to January 1, 2014 before bringing a future motion to vary, as the ability to pay is the very subject matter of such a motion.

The appellant and her husband were granted a divorce, but the order was stayed pending further court order.

Before the stay was lifted, the husband died.

A dispute arose between the appellant and the husband's children over whether the marriage was terminated by divorce or death.

The motion judge dismissed the appellant's motion for a declaration.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that because the divorce order was stayed, it had not taken effect under the Divorce Act prior to the husband's death.

Therefore, the marriage was terminated by death, and the divorce order was permanently stayed.

In a child protection summary judgment motion under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the society sought Crown Wardship without access for a child who had been in care since birth.

The court held there was no genuine issue for trial as against either the mother or the maternal grandmother, finding the evidence showed ongoing concerns about domestic violence, failure to protect, instability, and the absence of a sufficiently secure and permanent kin placement.

Applying the statutory best interests factors, the court concluded that delay would be harmful and that the proposed family placements did not provide the necessary permanency.

The court also held that continued access would not be beneficial and meaningful from the child’s perspective and would likely impair future adoption opportunities.

The parties separated after an 11-year marriage with two young children.

The father sought joint custody and equal parenting time, while the mother sought sole custody, citing concerns about the father's mental health, volatile temper, and lack of historical involvement in the children's care.

The court admitted expert psychological evidence indicating the father did not suffer from a mental illness.

However, applying the principles for joint custody, the court found the parents lacked the necessary communication and cooperation.

The mother was granted sole custody as she had been the primary caregiver and demonstrated better insight into the children's needs.

The court also resolved equalization of net family property and ordered the father to pay child support.

Dans ce dossier de protection de l’enfance, la société requérante demandait l’autorisation de retirer une requête en protection fondée sur le refus parental de consentir à des examens diagnostiques et à une chirurgie recommandée pour un enfant présentant une tumeur rénale possiblement maligne.

La preuve démontrait qu’après des ordonnances de supervision et une seconde opinion, l’enfant avait été évalué comme apte à consentir au traitement et continuait de refuser la chirurgie, préférant des traitements alternatifs compatibles avec ses traditions et son héritage autochtones.

Le tribunal a conclu que, même si la chirurgie paraissait l’option médicale la plus convaincante, l’intervention de la société n’était plus nécessaire ni utile dans l’intérêt véritable de l’enfant puisque les médecins ne procéderaient vraisemblablement pas sans son consentement personnel.

Le retrait de la requête a donc été permis.

On an interim family motion, the responding party sought joint shared custody while the applicant sought sole custody, primary parenting, support, section 7 contribution, property carrying costs, and related relief.

The court held that both parents were fit and devoted, that there was no established risk of harm to the children in either parent's care, and that the relevant status quo was the pre-tactical parenting arrangement rather than the short-lived supervised regime following criminal charges.

Applying the best interests of the children and maximum contact principles, the court imposed interim joint custody and an alternating-week parenting schedule.

The court also ordered interim child support, section 7 payments, contribution to matrimonial home carrying costs for a limited period, continued benefits coverage, ongoing assessment measures, and no costs.

This costs endorsement arose from a family law contempt motion concerning non-compliance with prior orders requiring production of insurance documents and implementation of direct reimbursement for medical and dental expenses.

Although the court did not find contempt, it granted alternative compliance relief and held that the moving party was successful enough to attract costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court rejected the argument that costs should be deferred, found the responding party's non-compliance unreasonable, and quantified costs by reference to hourly rates, time spent, proportionality, and fairness.

Costs of $3,088.97 were fixed and made payable forthwith with post-judgment interest, enforceable as child support.

The respondent moved to vary spousal support following loss of employment after a long marriage in which the applicant had primarily remained at home and earned only modest income.

The court found only a limited material change in circumstances, accepted temporary unemployment for a six-month period, and otherwise held the moving party should still be capable of earning the previously imputed income.

The court was critical of the moving party's credibility and found no evidentiary basis to reduce support beyond that short interval.

The variation was granted only in part, arrears were reduced by $1,500, the arrears remained payable forthwith subject to enforcement arrangements, and no costs were ordered.

The applicant moved to terminate spousal support following voluntary retirement at age 55, arguing that the resulting reduction in income was a material change in circumstances and that continued support would amount to double recovery after equalization of his pension.

The court held that retirement at age 55 and its income consequences were reasonably foreseeable when the parties executed both the partial and final separation agreements, particularly given the express contractual language that a voluntary reduction in income would not constitute a material change.

Applying the material change threshold under s. 17(4.1) of the Divorce Act and the principles governing negotiated spousal support agreements, the court found no basis to vary the support obligation.

The respondent's limited employability, modest circumstances, and ongoing economic hardship arising from the marriage breakdown supported continued support.

The motion was dismissed, support was fixed at $2000.00 per month from March 1, 2014, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

In a family law trial following separation, the court resolved parenting, matrimonial property, child support income, carrying costs, and occupation rent issues.

The court declined to increase the respondent’s weekday access, finding the requested change was not shown to be in the child’s best interests.

Interpreting a marriage contract dealing with unequal contributions to a replacement matrimonial home, the court held the parties should share the reduced sale proceeds proportionately rather than equally, awarding 38% to the applicant and 62% to the respondent.

The court also imputed child support income to the respondent at amounts exceeding some of his claimed earnings, limited the applicant’s liability for carrying costs to a specific tax-related amount, and denied occupation rent.

The appellant appealed a spousal support order, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to impute income to the respondent and failing to consider the disposition of her business.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's decision not to impute income due to the respondent's health issues and lack of skills was a finding of fact supported by the record.

The court held there was no palpable and overriding error or error in principle to justify interfering with the discretionary support award.

The appellant appealed an order confirming a previous order that struck his pleadings for failing to comply with multiple disclosure orders in a family law proceeding.

The Court of Appeal found no error by the motion judge, noting the appellant failed to provide evidence of compliance despite being given ample opportunity.

The appeal was dismissed, though the Court left open the possibility for the appellant to seek an indulgence to reopen pleadings if he demonstrates substantial compliance in the future.

The appellant agency sought an order to detain a pregnant woman who was addicted to glue sniffing in a health centre for treatment until the birth of her child, to prevent harm to the unborn child.

The superior court judge granted the order under the court's parens patriae jurisdiction, but it was set aside on appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the agency's appeal, holding that neither the law of tort nor the parens patriae jurisdiction recognizes an unborn child as a legal person possessing rights.

The Court concluded that extending the law to permit the detention of a pregnant woman to protect her fetus would involve major policy changes and complex ramifications that are best left to the legislature.