Family and Matrimonial Law

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $4,000 all-inclusive.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 24, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs payable to the responding party in the amount of $5,000 all-inclusive.

The appellant mother appealed a motion judge's order varying child support and section 7 expenses.

The motion judge had found a material change in circumstances due to the children's refusal to accept transportation from the respondent father, and the eldest child's attendance at university combined with the appellant's failure to disclose funding sources.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no material error, misapprehension of evidence, or error in law in the motion judge's discretionary decisions, and rejected the appellant's claim of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The moving party father sought an urgent stay of an interim order granting the responding party mother sole decision-making responsibility regarding their eight-year-old child's medical treatment, pending a motion for leave to appeal.

The mother wished to follow a pediatric endocrinologist's advice to commence treatment for a medical condition, while the father opposed it.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the father failed to establish a serious issue to be determined on the motion for leave to appeal, as there were no conflicting decisions on the legal principles and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's factual findings.

The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured expeditious decision-making in the child's best interests.

The appellants filed notices of appeal in the Divisional Court from a Family Court order that granted sole decision-making responsibility, child support, and a $452,000 equalization payment, and declared a fraudulent conveyance.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court held that under section 19 of the Courts of Justice Act, it lacked jurisdiction because the equalization payment exceeded $50,000 and the order was made under both the federal Divorce Act and the provincial Family Law Act.

The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to the appellants proceeding in the Court of Appeal.

The appellant's children were brought to a place of safety by the Children's Aid Society.

The protection application was later withdrawn and the parties reached an agreement.

The appellant subsequently brought a motion for a declaration that the CAS acted unlawfully by not obtaining a warrant, and sought costs.

The motion judge declined to rule on the warrant issue and declined to order costs.

The appellant appealed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's discretionary decision to decline declaratory relief or in her application of costs principles.

The appellant appealed a Family Court trial decision that found the parties were spouses under the Family Law Act and ordered him to pay spousal and child support based on an imputed income of $156,841.89.

The appellant argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in assessing the relationship, awarding support, and imputing income.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no material misapprehension of evidence or error in law, and upheld the trial judge's credibility findings and support orders.

A motion to introduce fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court decision dated July 21, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay inclusive costs of $5,000 to the responding party within thirty days.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his request to retroactively terminate child support for his adult son and order repayment of $8,533.

The motion judge found the son remained entitled to support due to intellectual issues, including Autism Spectrum Disorder, which impeded his ability to become self-supporting.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's assessment of the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant passed away after perfecting an appeal of a final order arising from a binding judicial dispute resolution hearing.

Due to the appellant's death, the proceeding was automatically stayed.

Appellant's counsel brought a motion to be removed from the record as he could not obtain instructions from an authorized estate representative.

The Divisional Court adjourned the appeal, ordered the proceeding to continue against the appellant's estate pursuant to rule 10.02, required the respondent to provide a status update within 90 days, and granted counsel's motion to be removed from the record.

The appellant husband, a professional hockey coach, appealed a spousal support order of $27,000 per month.

During the marriage, the parties had a practice of saving a significant portion of the husband's income in a retirement compensation arrangement due to the instability of his profession.

The trial judge included a savings component in the spousal support award to allow the respondent wife to maintain the marital standard of living, which included saving for the future.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the award did not constitute an impermissible redistribution of capital, as the wife had become entirely dependent on the husband for both daily necessities and future financial security.

The motion judge declared a two-year-old child in need of protection but ordered the child returned to the parents.

When the child protection worker inspected the parents' home the next day, she found it unsanitary and unsafe, and decided to proceed with a technical apprehension rather than returning the child immediately.

The parents remedied the defects and the child was returned a few days later.

The parents brought a motion for contempt of court, which the motion judge granted.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the contempt finding, holding that the original order was ambiguous regarding the agency's right to inspect and respond to safety concerns, and that the motion judge erred by resolving contradictory affidavit evidence on a quasi-criminal contempt motion.

The appellant mother appealed an order requiring the return of her two children to Israel pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The mother had wrongfully detained the children in Ontario after obtaining permission from an Israeli court to take them to Czechoslovakia for a temporary visit.

The mother argued that returning the children would expose them to a grave risk of harm and that their refugee claim should stay the Convention proceedings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's conclusion that the mother failed to establish the Article 13 exceptions and that the Convention proceedings should not be stayed pending the refugee claim.

A motion to introduce fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his motion to set aside a final order granting the respondent mother sole custody and child support.

The final order was made in the appellant's absence immediately after his solicitor was removed from the record.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant was unaware of his solicitor's motion to be removed and the respondent's motion proceeded without personal service.

The Court held that the resulting procedural unfairness tainted the proceedings, warranting the setting aside of the default orders.

The appellant father appealed a child support order, arguing that the higher cost of living in the U.K. should be factored into the conversion of his foreign income to Canadian dollars under section 20 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that section 20 requires a straight currency conversion and does not permit imputing a lower income based on living costs, though such costs could be considered under the undue hardship provisions.

The respondent mother's cross-appeal for full retroactive child support was reserved pending upcoming Supreme Court of Canada decisions on the issue.

The parties separated and were unable to agree on the treatment of the appellant's workers' compensation benefits for a workplace injury.

The application judge found that the benefits fell within the definition of property under the Family Law Act and should be included in the appellant's net family property.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that disability benefits represent income replacement and are more appropriately treated on the same basis as income from employment.

The court concluded that the benefits should be taken into account for spousal support but excluded from the equalization of family property.

The appeal was allowed.

The appellant sought to set aside a separation agreement, alleging mistakes, material non-disclosure, and an unfair process.

The trial judge dismissed the application but rectified the agreement to account for a hidden gambling account.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in his process and in failing to set aside the agreement based on errors in business valuation, income calculation, and spousal support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the substantive appeal, finding the parties had freely negotiated the agreement with full disclosure, but allowed the appeal in part to reduce the trial costs awarded to the respondent from a substantial to a partial indemnity scale.

The appellant husband appealed an order regarding support arrears.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge had sufficient material to infer that the husband's claim of inability to pay the arrears was false.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent wife.

The appellant sought to appeal an order denying an emergency change of custody.

The motion judge had declined to grant the emergency change, leaving the full motion for variation of custody to be heard at a later date.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, holding that the order below was interlocutory and therefore not appealable to the Court of Appeal.