Family and Matrimonial Law

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of McPherson J. dated April 5, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,500.

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

On consent of the parties, the motion for leave to appeal was withdrawn without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal paragraph 2 of a temporary order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as the responding party failed to upload a costs outline.

The appellant moved for a stay pending appeal of a trial judgment ordering him to pay child and spousal support based on an imputed income of $156,841.89.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the appellant failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of McKenzie J. dated May 17, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order committing a youth to a secure treatment program for 180 days under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The trial judge found that the youth had attempted to cause serious bodily harm within the preceding 45 days based on a threat to jump off a bridge, ingestion of an unidentified quantity of methamphetamine, and an involuntary hospital admission for suicidal ideation.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in law because the incidents amounted to mere threats or lacked evidence of actual harm or risk of serious bodily harm.

The secure treatment order was set aside.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a case conference order dated November 21, 2021.

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

The Divisional Court issued an endorsement to clarify its previous decision overturning a trial judge's parenting order.

The parties sought clarification on whether the trial order or a prior interim order governed the father's parenting time.

The court confirmed that because the trial order was set aside, the interim parenting order from September 22, 2015, continues in effect until a new order is agreed upon or imposed.

No costs were awarded.

The mother appealed a summary judgment order concerning the protection of and access to her child.

At the hearing, the parties presented a mutually acceptable agreement to dismiss the appeal on consent.

The Children's Aid Society undertook not to place the child for adoption without consent for seven months, to evaluate the possibility of reintegration, to increase access to at least twice a month, and to bring an early status review application if reintegration is deemed possible.

The Divisional Court granted the consent endorsement request and dismissed the appeal on those terms.

The moving party sought a stay of two endorsements made by a case management judge pending a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The underlying endorsements had dismissed several of the moving party's appeals as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.

The Divisional Court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding party did not file any materials.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Czutrin J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party filed no materials, the court made no order as to costs.

The respondent father brought a motion to dismiss the applicant mother's family law application in Ontario, arguing lack of jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens.

The parties had lived in Costa Rica since 2016, where their assets and children were located, and where family law proceedings were already underway.

The court found that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter as there was no real and substantial connection to the province.

Alternatively, the court held that Costa Rica was the clearly more appropriate forum and dismissed the Ontario application.

The appellant appealed a final order reducing his spousal support obligation and dismissing his request to rescind arrears.

He argued the application judge erred by including his pension income in the support calculation, which he claimed resulted in double dipping, and by awarding support above the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the parties' separation agreement expressly included pension income for post-retirement support and the application judge's exercise of discretion to award support above the SSAG range was reasonable given the parties' unequal financial positions.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Papageorgiou J. dated November 12, 2021.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the applicant fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.

The appellant sued her former family lawyer for negligence, alleging the lawyer failed to properly advise her regarding spousal support and business valuations when negotiating a separation agreement.

The motion judge stayed the civil action as an abuse of process, ruling that the appellant must first attempt to set aside the separation agreement under the Family Law Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the Family Law Act is a complete code for spousal support claims and the civil system should not be used to circumvent the statutory regime governing matrimonial disputes.

The mother appealed a motion judge's decision regarding retroactive child support and imputed income.

The motion judge had denied the mother's request for retroactive support prior to October 2019, finding that the father had made payments for airline tickets and a lump sum that offset the amount owed.

The motion judge also imputed an income of $30,000 to the mother and ordered her to pay child support for the child in the father's care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings or exercise of discretion.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, but restricted it solely to issues concerning COVID-19 vaccination.

The court recommended the appeal be heard alongside a related case and ordered the responding party to pay costs of $4,500.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order requiring her to pay table amount child support, arguing the judge erred by failing to apply the undue hardship test under section 10(1) of the Child Support Guidelines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly identified the legal test but was unable to apply it due to the appellant's failure to provide sufficient evidence of her income and means.

The court found no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motion judge's conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to establish undue hardship.

The appellant sought to appeal an order discontinuing a trial and directing that a new trial be scheduled before a different judge.

The Divisional Court determined that the order was interlocutory, not final, as it did not dispose of the litigation.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, indicating it was considering dismissing the appeal as an abuse of process for lacking jurisdiction, but provided the appellant an opportunity to make written submissions.