Family and Matrimonial Law

The mother appealed a Crown wardship order, arguing that institutional delays in the appeal process, specifically regarding transcript preparation, breached her s. 7 Charter rights by allowing the child to bond with a prospective adoptive family over four years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Charter application, finding that the delay did not cause the substantive prejudice alleged, as the passage of time also allowed the mother to improve her situation, but it remained in the child's best interests to stay with the adoptive family.

The mother was awarded costs for the Charter application payable by the Attorney General.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order dismissing her application to set aside an arbitral award regarding spousal support.

The arbitrator had previously found the appellant entered into a relationship resembling marriage, terminating her support entitlement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motions judge that the application was an abuse of process attempting to relitigate issues already decided, raised no genuine issue for trial, and was commenced outside the 30-day time limit under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The parties entered into a separation agreement in 2005 to share the children's special expenses equally instead of following the Child Support Guidelines.

The appellant father defaulted in 2008 and sought to terminate his contractual obligations, claiming a material change in circumstances due to declining income and an inability to liquidate capital.

The application judge dismissed his request, finding the circumstances were foreseeable when the agreement was signed.

The Superior Court and the Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming that foreseeability is central to the test for varying contractual child support obligations.

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

The parties' separation agreement and divorce order imputed the appellant's income at $200,000, with no variation unless his income changed by more than 10%.

The appellant argued his support should be based on his line 150 income.

The motion judge found the appellant had transferred an income-producing asset to his common-law spouse to remove income that would properly be used to calculate support, and thus failed to demonstrate a change in income.

The Court of Appeal found no error and dismissed the appeal.

The parties, a same-sex couple, entered into a civil partnership in the United Kingdom when same-sex marriage was not permitted there.

After moving to Ontario and separating, the respondent sought a divorce and equalization under the Divorce Act and Family Law Act.

The appellant argued they were not spouses.

The motion judge declared the civil partnership a marriage under the Civil Marriage Act and the parties spouses under the Divorce Act and Family Law Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge's interpretation consistent with the modern approach to statutory interpretation and Charter values.

The appellant father appealed a decision dismissing his motion to change child support for his adult disabled son, who had begun receiving Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits.

The trial judge and Divisional Court held that the presumptive table approach under the Federal Child Support Guidelines was not inappropriate.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the receipt of ODSP benefits displaced the assumptions underlying the table approach, making it inappropriate.

The matter was remitted for trial to determine the appropriate amount of support under s. 3(2)(b) of the Guidelines on a more complete factual record.

The appellant mother appealed a Superior Court decision that upheld a trial judge's order making her two children Crown wards without access.

The children had been in care since 2010.

The trial judge found the children would be at risk if returned to the mother due to her mental health, inability to care for them, and a toxic relationship.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle by the Superior Court judge and upheld the decision, noting the statutory timelines had passed and the children must be placed for adoption.

The applicant mother sought an extension of time to move to set aside an order dismissing her family law appeal for delay.

The underlying trial decision granted the respondent father exclusive custody of their two children.

The court applied the test for setting aside a dismissal for delay, focusing on the justice of the case.

The court found that the proposed appeal lacked merit, as the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors regarding custody, access, or consent to treatment.

Furthermore, the court held that prolonging the litigation was contrary to the best interests of the children, who needed finality and stability.

Both the applicant's motion and the respondent's cross-motion to restrict further litigation were dismissed.

The appellant grandmother appealed a summary judgment dismissing her application for access to her grandchildren.

She argued the motion judge erred by not determining who was to blame for the dysfunctional relationship between her and the respondent parents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that assigning blame would not assist in determining the best interests of the children, which was the sole question on the application.

The parties settled their matrimonial litigation in 2008 with a consent order providing for $3,000 monthly spousal support with no termination date.

In 2010, the respondent sought to terminate support and obtain child support, citing a decrease in his income and the appellant's unexplained accumulation of wealth.

The trial judge found a material change in circumstances, terminated spousal support, and ordered the appellant to pay child support.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the finding of a material change but found the trial judge erred by failing to consider the circumstances at the time of the original consent order, effectively rescinding rather than varying it.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

Following an appeal where the appellant wife was successful, the parties agreed on consent to set aside the trial costs disposition.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the trial judge determine the costs of the proceedings below, as well as the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal, bearing in mind the appellant's success.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order requiring him to repay $195,538.98 to a joint line of credit and $10,000 to a corporate respondent, arising from funds withdrawn during matrimonial proceedings.

The appellant argued the repayment obligations had not matured and were tied to other outstanding financial issues.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the repayment obligations had matured based on the clear terms of the signed documents and the availability of funds, and that no triable issue was established.

The appellant and respondent cohabited and signed a domestic contract establishing a separate property regime.

After separation, the appellant sought a constructive trust over the respondent's home, arguing the contract was unenforceable because his signature was not witnessed as required by s. 55(1) of the Family Law Act.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claims.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the strict witnessing requirements of s. 55(1) may be relaxed where the contract was executed without oppression, with full disclosure, and independent legal advice.

The court also rejected arguments that the contract was ambiguous or had been repudiated.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's findings regarding net family property deductions, imputed income for child support, and spousal support.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving his date of marriage deductions due to a lack of documentation.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's imputation of income, including capital gains, for child support purposes, nor in the modest spousal support award granted to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a trial decision that found a cohabitation agreement invalid but upheld the validity of subsequent Minutes of Settlement regarding spousal support.

The respondent cross-appealed the trial judge's decision to award no costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the Minutes were negotiated with independent legal advice and were not unconscionable.

Leave to appeal the costs order was also refused, as the trial judge properly exercised her discretion considering divided success and the parties' financial circumstances.

The appellant husband appealed the trial judge's order for an unequal division of net family property and occupation rent following a 32-year marriage.

The trial judge found unconscionability based on the husband forcing the wife to sign a joint line of credit through violence and threats.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's findings on unconscionability, occupation rent, minor calculation errors, or the amendment of pleadings at trial.

The appeal of the costs award was also dismissed due to the husband's unreasonable behaviour during the litigation.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her motion to set aside a default judgment.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's application of the legal test, noting the appellant failed to explain her failure to respond to the proceedings and her delay in moving to set aside the judgment.

The appeal was dismissed, with the appellant permitted to pursue the issue of support as a motion to change.

The father appealed a trial judge's order permitting the mother to relocate to Italy with their two children.

The father argued the trial judge erred in applying the principles of Gordon v. Goetz by focusing on the mother's reasons for moving, failing to adequately weigh the disruption to the children, and failing to prioritize maximizing contact with both parents.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge conducted a full and sensitive inquiry into the best interests of the children and made no reversible error.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to set aside an interim, interim without prejudice order requiring him to pay child and spousal support.

The appellant argued the original order was obtained by fraud and without notice, and that the motion judge failed to consider the Child Support Guidelines.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the order was not obtained by fraud, and noting that the original order was designed to maintain the status quo pending a case conference.

The appellant mother appealed a Superior Court decision that upheld an Ontario Court of Justice order denying her access to her children and maintaining their placement with their father under the supervision of the Children's Aid Society.

The mother had not seen her children since 2007 due to unaddressed mental health issues and had failed to comply with previous court orders requiring her to seek psychiatric assessment and treatment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the lower courts' decisions or in the refusal to grant an adjournment, and upheld the costs award against the mother.