Family and Matrimonial Law

The parties appeared for a trial regarding access and child support, which were resolved on consent.

The applicant mother sought costs of $14,653.61, and the respondent father sought disbursements of $1,150.

The court declined to award costs to either party, noting that the mother had been unreasonable regarding access and her position on child support was unrealistic given the father's prior contributions to her housing expenses.

No order as to costs was made.

The applicant father brought a Motion to Change seeking retroactive termination of a 1982 combined spousal and child support order and repayment of alleged overpayments totaling $78,229.87.

The father argued his support obligation ended in 1996.

The court found the father's delay in bringing the motion was entirely his own fault, despite being advised by courts in 1993 and 2007 to do so.

Taking a holistic approach, the court noted the father historically underpaid support, failed to contribute to extraordinary expenses, and that the mother used the funds to support the children.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no overpayment occurred.

The applicant successfully brought a motion to discharge a writ of execution registered against the matrimonial home by the respondent's former solicitor for unpaid legal fees.

The applicant then sought full indemnity costs for the motion.

The court awarded costs of $8,667.79 on a full indemnity basis, finding that the applicant had made a reasonable offer to settle that exceeded the third party's recovery, and that the third party had taken unreasonable positions in opposing the motion.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, and the respondent brought a cross-motion for access to their two young children.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $62,000 and found the applicant had established a prima facie case for spousal support entitlement due to the economic disadvantage of parenting.

The court ordered interim child and spousal support, and granted the respondent graduated access, starting with supervised visits and transitioning to unsupervised access, with strict conditions regarding the supervision of his older special needs child.

The respondent requested that her counsel be permitted to participate in an upcoming motion to change hearing by video conference and that a bilingual judge preside.

The applicant objected to the video conference request.

The court granted the request for a bilingual judge pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act, as French was the respondent's first language.

However, the court dismissed the request for video conferencing, noting that the hearing was for a final order, the respondent's counsel accepted the retainer knowing the hearing was in Toronto, and the volume of materials would make remote participation challenging.

The applicant estate trustee sought directions on whether the respondent's claim against the estate for $150,000, pursuant to a separation agreement, was statute-barred.

The deceased had failed to maintain life insurance as required, creating a first charge on the estate.

The estate trustee withheld information from the respondent that the life insurance policies had lapsed, delaying the respondent's discovery of her claim.

The court held that while the two-year limitation period under s. 38 of the Trustee Act applied, it was tolled by the doctrine of fraudulent concealment due to the estate trustee's unconscionable conduct in withholding material facts.

The respondent's claim was therefore permitted to proceed.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support and to amend her application to include a claim under the Divorce Act.

The parties had divorced in 1987 but resumed cohabitation in 1990 for 23 years.

The respondent argued the claim was statute-barred and the court lacked jurisdiction.

The court found the applicant met the definition of a spouse under the Family Law Act due to the lengthy post-divorce cohabitation and could also claim as a former spouse under the Divorce Act.

The court granted leave to amend the pleadings and ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $1,500 per month.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final consent order granting sole custody to the respondent father.

She argued that the termination of family counselling, the child's absence from school, and the respondent's changes in residence constituted material changes in circumstances.

The court applied the test from Gordon v. Goertz and found that none of these events were unforeseen or materially affected the children's needs in a fundamental way.

The motion to change was dismissed, and costs were fixed at $2,000 payable by the applicant.

In supplementary reasons following a family law trial, the court addressed outstanding issues regarding a certificate of pending litigation (CPL), the tax treatment of a spousal support lump sum, and costs.

The court ordered the CPL discharged to allow the respondent to refinance a property to pay the equalization payment.

The court also reduced the lump sum spousal support award to make it tax neutral.

Finally, the court found the applicant to be the substantially successful party and awarded him costs for disbursements and out-of-pocket legal fees, but denied his claim for compensation for his time spent as a self-represented litigant.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, the court determined interim parenting and support issues.

The court declined to award 'custody' to either parent, instead ordering a detailed shared parenting schedule to minimize conflict and maintain stability for the children.

The court imputed an income of $364,188 to the respondent business owner and ordered him to pay $4,454 monthly in child support and $7,575 monthly in spousal support.

Requests for funding to repair the matrimonial home and for its immediate sale were denied or adjourned.

The applicant and the deceased separated, and the deceased subsequently changed the beneficiary designation on his life insurance policy to his new partner, the respondent.

The applicant, unaware of the change, continued paying the premiums pursuant to an oral agreement with the deceased.

Upon the deceased's death, the applicant claimed entitlement to the $250,000 policy proceeds based on unjust enrichment and equitable assignment.

The court found that the oral agreement constituted an equitable assignment and that the beneficiary designation was not a juristic reason for the respondent's enrichment.

The court imposed a constructive trust over the proceeds in favour of the applicant.

Following the first stage of a bifurcated trial where the applicant successfully had a separation agreement set aside, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought $60,000, while the respondent argued for a partial indemnity award of $11,000.

The court found the applicant was presumptively entitled to costs and his counsel's rates were reasonable.

However, the court limited the award to fees and disbursements connected to the first stage of the trial and noted the applicant's offer to settle did not strictly comply with the seven-day rule under subrule 18(14).

The court awarded the applicant $22,000 in costs.

The respondent mother brought a motion to vary child support for two children.

The court determined the living arrangements and educational status of the older child to calculate the applicant father's child support obligations for specific periods.

The court also imputed income to both parties for certain years to calculate the mother's ongoing and retroactive child support obligations for the younger child.

The mother's claim for undue hardship was dismissed as she failed to meet the requirements under section 10(2) of the Child Support Guidelines.

The court ordered the mother to pay the net arrears and ongoing support.

The respondent father obtained a provisional variation order in England to reduce his child support obligations.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice held a written hearing to determine whether to confirm the provisional order under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002.

The court declined to confirm the order, finding that the father provided misleading evidence to the English court, failed to make transparent financial disclosure, and did not demonstrate a material change in circumstances to justify a variation.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, an advance on equalization, and disclosure.

The court imputed additional income to the respondent under sections 18 and 19 of the Child Support Guidelines, finding that his employer paid personal expenses and that he had access to dividend income from a holding company despite an alleged estate freeze.

The court set the respondent's income at $180,000 and ordered interim child support, spousal support, and a $30,000 advance on equalization to allow the applicant to fund the litigation.

The mother brought a motion to change a custody and access order after the father unilaterally moved to a rural property, significantly increasing the child's travel time to school and extracurricular activities.

The court found a material change in circumstances.

While both parents were capable, the court determined it was in the child's best interests to reside primarily with the mother in London during the school week to reduce travel time and maintain community ties, with the father having primary care during the summer.

The maternal grandparents and mother sought a stay of an Ontario Court of Justice order that granted temporary care and custody of two children to their father pending an appeal.

The children had been living with the maternal grandparents after the mother voluntarily placed them there.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the stay, finding that the appeal raised serious issues, including whether a parent has priority over a grandparent, and that it was in the children's best interests to remain in their current, familiar environment with the maternal grandparents to minimize disruption pending the appeal.

The applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis following successful motions regarding the respondent's breach of solicitor-client privilege.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, noting the complexity of the issues and the respondent's unreasonable behaviour.

The court reduced the applicant's claimed fees by 15% for unrelated services but ordered the respondent to pay $47,328.90 in costs immediately, rejecting his request to pay from the future sale of the matrimonial home.

The moving party father applied to vary a 2005 consent order to terminate child support for two adult children, reduce support for the youngest child, and rescind arrears of approximately $55,000.

The responding party mother opposed the reduction and rescission.

The court noted that the 2005 order permitted the filing of minutes of settlement with the Family Responsibility Office but did not explicitly order child support.

The court raised concerns about its jurisdiction to vary the agreement under the Family Law Act, as the agreement was not filed in the Ontario Court of Justice or the Family Court branch.

The court adjourned the motion to invite submissions from the Family Responsibility Office on the jurisdictional issue.

The respondent father brought a motion for equal shared parenting and an order that the child's residence remain in Ottawa.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion seeking sole custody and permission to relocate with the child to Cornwall to live with her fiancé.

The court applied the framework from Gordon v. Goertz and determined that it was in the child's best interests to remain in Ottawa on an interim basis, noting the child's established routine, extended family, and the lack of detailed evidence regarding the proposed move.

The court ordered that the child's primary residence remain in Ottawa, maintained the existing parenting schedule, and ordered the father to pay interim child support.