Family and Matrimonial Law

The father appealed a trial judgment that transferred custody of his 16-year-old son to the mother due to severe parental alienation and authorized the mother to take the son to a specialized reunification workshop.

A stay of the trial judgment was previously granted.

The mother brought a motion to set aside the stay, and the son brought a motion for leave to intervene as an added party to the appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the mother's motion, finding the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the stay until the imminent appeal hearing.

The Court granted the son's motion to intervene, noting his age, the profound impact the order would have on his life, and the benefit of hearing his perspective, subject to terms preventing delay or the introduction of fresh evidence.

The appellant sought a review of a single judge's decision dismissing his motion for a stay, and appealed an application judge's decision dismissing his motion to vary support orders based on a material change in circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the review, noting the underlying appeal had already been dismissed for failure to pay support arrears.

The Court also dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the application judge's rejection of the appellant's disability evidence.

The appellant's attempt to introduce fresh medical evidence on appeal was rejected as procedurally flawed and substantively insufficient to affect the result.

Justice for Children and Youth brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in a series of appeals brought by the Children's Lawyer.

The appeals concerned a Superior Court judge's order, made under parens patriae jurisdiction, requiring the Children's Lawyer to represent children in matrimonial litigation due to exigent circumstances.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to intervene, finding that the proposed intervener could provide useful assistance on the impact of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the court's parens patriae jurisdiction, especially since no party was responding to the appeals.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judgment ordering joint custody of the parties' two children, arguing the parents could not communicate, there was a history of domestic violence, and the order lacked a dispute resolution mechanism.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge had an evidentiary basis to conclude the parties could effectively communicate once court orders preventing contact were lifted.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the domestic abuse allegations or the access schedule.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order for ongoing child support, arrears, and costs.

The respondent conceded that the trial judge made a calculation error under the Child Support Guidelines.

The Court of Appeal amended the ongoing support to $277 per month.

The Court also found that the trial judge erred in making the support award retroactive to a date prior to the application without considering all the factors from D.B.S. v S.R.G. The retroactive award prior to August 5, 2008, was set aside, trial costs were reduced, and the appellant was awarded costs of the appeal.

The appellant husband appealed a restraining order granted against him, arguing there was an insufficient evidential basis for the order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the record revealed a history of physical and verbal abuse, threats, and breaches of a probation order.

The court concluded the respondent had reasonable grounds to fear for her safety and the safety of their child, justifying the restraining order.

Following a successful appeal under the Hague Convention ordering the return of a child to England, the appellant father sought costs of $15,000 for the appeal and $15,000 for the application hearing.

The respondent mother argued for no costs or $5,000.

The Court of Appeal awarded the appellant costs for both proceedings, fixed in the aggregate amount of $5,000 on a partial indemnity scale, balancing the need for deterrence with the relative financial situations of the parties.

The appellant, the aunt of two orphaned children, sought an extension of time to file materials to be added as a party to a custody proceeding after missing a peremptory deadline.

The motion judge denied the extension, prioritizing the scheduled trial date and the children's need for stability.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretionary decision, noting the appellant had previously been involved but failed to take the necessary steps in time.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's finding that the parties cohabited continuously for more than three years and were "spouses" under Part III of the Family Law Act.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in her factual findings and in her use of evidence from the respondent's psychiatrist.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge applied the correct test and her findings were adequately supported by the evidence, including her conclusion that the respondent's infidelities did not negate the spousal relationship.

The appellant mother appealed an order striking her pleadings and granting final sole custody of the parties' two young children to the respondent father.

The motion judge had struck the mother's pleadings due to her repeated failure to comply with interim orders requiring her to return the children from Quebec to Ontario.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the motion judge had the power to strike the pleadings, it was a material error to make a final custody order without sufficient evidence to determine the best interests of the children under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The matter was remitted for an expedited determination of custody and access.

The appellant appealed orders finding him in contempt of court for failing to make financial disclosure in a family law proceeding, awarding full indemnity costs against him, and dismissing his cross-motion for contempt against the respondent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the contempt finding, noting the appellant deliberately and wilfully disobeyed a clear court order to produce corporate financial information.

The court refused leave to appeal the costs award, finding no error in principle.

The court also dismissed the appeal regarding the cross-motion for contempt, finding the respondent's failure to produce certain bank documents was a mistake rather than intentional disobedience.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that annulled the parties' marriage based on the law of Iran.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact.

The trial judge's credibility findings, which favoured the respondent over the appellant, were upheld.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order permitting the respondent to relocate with the children to Hamilton.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding the move was a material change in circumstances, that it was not reasonably foreseeable, and that it was in the best interests of the children.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the law, made no palpable and overriding errors, and properly considered all factors regarding the children's best interests.

The appellant father appealed a Divisional Court decision that overturned a motion judge's finding denying the respondent mother retroactive child support.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge correctly concluded that a 1997 amending agreement continued in force until 2005 and provided reasonable child support.

The Court also upheld the motion judge's finding that the father had shared custody of the son more than 40% of the time, making section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines applicable.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's findings regarding spousal status, matrimonial property distribution, and a costs award.

The respondent cross-appealed, arguing that retroactive spousal support should have been awarded for three years rather than one.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of family law principles or exercise of discretion.

The Court also ordered specific allocations from funds held by the Accountant of the Ontario Court to finalize the matter.

The appellant sought leave to bring a motion to enforce an alleged settlement agreement, which was required under a previous court order.

The motion judge denied leave, finding the appellant had shown a flagrant and persistent disregard for prior court orders, including failing to give the respondent exclusive possession of four properties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretionary order, especially given conflicting evidence on whether a binding settlement agreement had been reached.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's awards for section 7 expenses and spousal support.

The parties have three children, two of whom are disabled.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the trial judge's calculation of section 7 expenses, noting the children's needs exceeded available funds and the trial judge was aware of government assistance.

The Court also upheld the spousal support award of $2,500 per month, finding it supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a judgment from an undefended trial, abandoning his appeal regarding jointly owned real estate.

The sole remaining issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to support deducting the value of a personal injury action from the respondent's net family property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the respondent had adequately discharged her onus under section 4(3) of the Family Law Act.

The appellant father appealed and the respondent mother cross-appealed the trial judge's orders regarding access, property interests, and costs.

The father did not attend the hearing and advised he no longer wished to be involved.

The Court of Appeal allowed the cross-appeal in part, modifying the access order to be as requested by the 14-year-old child, given fresh evidence that she had not seen her father in three years and did not want access.

The court dismissed the cross-appeal regarding property interests and costs, finding no error in the trial judge's application of resulting trust and partnership principles, nor in the discretionary costs award.

The appellant appealed an order requiring him to make support payments to the Family Responsibility Office and a related costs order.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal regarding the support payments, finding it was an interlocutory order over which it lacked jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the appeal regarding costs, finding no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent.