Family and Matrimonial Law

The appellant wife appealed an order denying an adjournment of a motion to have funds held in court stand as security for future spousal support payments.

The respondent husband was legally entitled to the funds and was not in default of his monthly support payments.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the wife's claim of a lack of a meaningful remedy was speculative and that the motion judge did not err in using an injunction-like analysis to deny the adjournment, as granting it would have effectively stayed the payment out of court.

The appellants appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice, which dismissed their appeal from an order of the lower court.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the appeal judge's decision and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding damages arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in finding the respondent was the deceased's 'spouse' under the Family Law Act, as they had not 'moved in' together three years prior to the accident.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that 'living together in a conjugal relationship' is a flexible, unitary concept and maintaining separate residences does not preclude a finding of cohabitation.

The court also upheld the trial judge's refusal to reduce damages for contingencies, as no evidence was led on that issue.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to order repayment of an overpayment of child support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge acted within his discretion in refusing to order repayment.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion regarding Minutes of Settlement executed by the respondent and the appellant's trustee in bankruptcy.

The appellant argued that a term releasing the respondent's claim for future spousal and child support was inadvertently omitted from the Minutes of Settlement.

The motion judge determined the issue on unclear and conflicting evidence.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge erred by failing to direct the trial of an issue.

The appeal was allowed in part, and a trial of the issue was directed.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judgment ordering joint custody and parallel parenting of the parties' four-year-old child.

She sought sole custody, arguing the trial judge erred in prioritizing the father's interests, presuming co-parenting was appropriate, and ordering joint custody despite parental conflict.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the custody appeal, finding the trial judge made no reviewable errors and that the child was thriving under the joint custody arrangement.

The Court varied the parenting schedule to align with a post-trial expert assessment and allowed the appeal regarding child support, ordering the respondent to pay support in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines.

Following the release of the main appeal decision, the Court of Appeal addressed the issue of costs.

Considering the general importance of the issues, the limited success achieved by the appellant, and the appellant's advancement of new arguments not raised before the motion judge, the court set aside the motion judge's costs order and ordered that the parties bear their own costs both in the Court of Appeal and in the court below.

The appellant father appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent mother sole custody of their child and permitting her to relocate to Quebec.

The father argued the mother interfered with his access and that the trial judge failed to apply the maximum contact principle or give proper weight to the custody assessor's report.

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

The court emphasized that trial judges are owed considerable deference in custody matters and that the weight given to expert evidence is for the trier of fact.

The mobility clause was struck out as moot since the mother had already returned to Ontario.

The appellant father appealed a family law order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal amended the order on consent to provide the father with access one night per week to correct an oversight.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a judgment regarding custody and access.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the issues of custody and access were being brought back before the Superior Court in Peterborough, which retained jurisdiction over the matter.

The mother appealed a trial judgment ordering shared parenting (joint custody) and equal access time.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, granting the mother sole custody because the parents had a complete communication breakdown and could not cooperate, making joint custody inappropriate.

However, the court upheld the equal access time and child support orders, finding that equal time with both parents remained in the children's best interests.

The mother brought a motion to vary a child support order, seeking increased contribution from the father for post-secondary education expenses for their two adult sons.

The sons had substantial capital assets from gifts.

The motion judge ordered the father to pay table support and a proportionate share of the education expenses, requiring the sons to contribute only from their summer earnings.

The father appealed, arguing the sons should use their capital assets first.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the motion judge erred in failing to consider the extent to which the children should be expected to contribute to their own education expenses out of their capital assets under s. 3(2)(b) and s. 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The mother appealed a trial judgment granting custody of the children to the father.

The trial judge found that the mother engaged in persistent alienating conduct, including moving the children to a different town on the eve of trial, and was unable to support a relationship between the children and their father.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and concluding that the trial judge's decision was supported by expert evidence and the mother's deep-rooted inability to foster the children's relationship with the father.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment, arguing the trial judge misapprehended the date he signed an agreed statement of facts admitting his children were in need of protection, and that an interim custody order was fraudulently obtained.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the date error immaterial as the appellant signed the statement while represented by counsel and his claim of duress was rejected.

The court also found the interim custody order was made on consent while the appellant was represented by counsel, and he had knowledge of it shortly after.

The parties entered into a separation agreement to resolve corollary relief proceedings.

The respondent brought a motion to compel the appellant to comply with the agreement, which was granted.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the agreement by way of motion rather than application, and that the motion judge erred in awarding interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a motion was appropriate because the underlying action had not been dismissed, and that the motion judge had statutory authority to award interest under the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant sued her former family law lawyer for negligence, alleging he failed to adequately protect her equalization claim against her husband, who was a known flight risk.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that while the lawyer breached the standard of care in some respects, his recommendation to settle was not an 'egregious error' and his delays did not cause the appellant's loss.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge erred by applying the 'egregious error' test instead of the standard of reasonableness, and by using a segmented time grid analysis that failed to assess the lawyer's overall failure to advance the case to trial.

The appellants appealed an order of the motion judge regarding the litigation guardian for the minor plaintiffs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that any potential conflict of interest would not impede the litigation guardian's ability to act in the best interests of the children.

Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The moving party brought a motion seeking to review or reopen the court's previous disposition of her appeals.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion without an oral hearing, finding a lack of merit and a lack of jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.

The court noted that the proper remedy for dissatisfaction with the disposition of the appeals was to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The court ordered that the moving party may not file further motions in respect of these appeals.

The appellant brought a motion to set aside an order of Doherty J.A., which had dismissed a previous motion to set aside an order of Borins J.A. The Court of Appeal found no merit to the motion, noting that the appellant was seeking to extend the time to appeal for the third time, a matter already determined by two previous orders.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision regarding whether the parties' cohabitation was for the primary purpose of reconciliation under their separation agreement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the matter involved diametrically conflicting evidence and required findings of credibility that could only be resolved after a trial on viva voce evidence, rather than on a motion.