Family and Matrimonial Law

The appellant appealed an order refusing his motion to change a final order regarding child support arrears.

At the commencement of the appeal hearing, the self-represented respondent requested an adjournment to retain new counsel.

The appellant consented to the adjournment, noting that the parties were involved in another family law proceeding and a global mediation might resolve all issues.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment sine die to allow the parties an opportunity to seek a global resolution.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of MacLeod R.S.J. dated October 20, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The appellant mother sought to appeal a temporary order adding the child's kin as parties to a child protection proceeding for the limited purpose of seeking access.

The Divisional Court determined the order was interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal.

Applying the test under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court denied leave, finding no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and no issue of general importance.

The appellant appealed an urgent motion order requiring him to return his three children to their primary residence with the respondent and to pay $3,000 in costs.

The Divisional Court found the appeal on the merits to be moot, as the appellant had already complied with the order to return the children.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal.

Leave to appeal the costs order was denied, as the motion judge's award of full indemnity costs was reasonable and within her discretion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of Henderson J. dated November 12, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs were requested, no costs were ordered.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order requiring him to disclose certain information.

He had also brought a separate motion before the motion judge to correct a mistake in the same order pursuant to rule 25(19)(b) of the Family Law Rules.

The Divisional Court held that the leave to appeal motion was premature and adjourned it until the motion to correct the order was decided and finalized.

The appellant sought to appeal a final order regarding custody and mobility made under the Divorce Act.

The Divisional Court noted that appeals of final orders under the Divorce Act must be directed to the Court of Appeal.

With the consent of the parties and due to urgency, the court ordered the appeal transferred to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant husband appealed an order directing the sale of a jointly owned property prior to trial.

The Divisional Court reviewed the motion judge's decision, noting that a joint owner has a prima facie right to an order for sale unless it would cause prejudice, hardship, or injustice.

The court found that the motion judge applied the correct legal test, properly weighed the evidence, and appropriately exercised her discretion in ordering the sale while protecting the husband's interests by restraining the wife from encumbering her own property.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that dismissed her claims for unjust enrichment and a joint family venture arising from her involvement in the respondent's dog grooming business during their common-law relationship.

The trial judge had found the appellant exaggerated her involvement and was adequately compensated.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual and credibility findings.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument that her trial counsel provided inadequate representation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to impute an annual income of $130,000 to him for the purpose of calculating spousal support.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by relying solely on previous earnings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge considered multiple factors including age, education, skills, and local job market rates.

The court also dismissed a motion to introduce fresh evidence of the appellant's post-hearing employment, noting the proper procedure for changed circumstances is a new motion to change.

The applicant father brought an urgent, without-notice motion for a stay pending appeal of an order granting the respondent mother leave to travel to Sudan with their ten-year-old child over the holidays.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay and found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a strong case on appeal, that the alleged irreparable harm was highly speculative, and that the balance of convenience favoured the child's best interests in taking the trip.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The appellant, who had de facto custody of the child, appealed a summary judgment finding that the child was in need of protection and an order denying her access.

The child had complex medical needs, and the medical evidence indicated the appellant was providing inadequate care, leading to the child's declining health.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's reliance on the medical evidence, the finding that the child was in need of protection, or the determination that it was in the child's best interests to deny the appellant access.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, a registered social worker acting as a parenting coordinator and arbitrator, sought judicial review of a decision by the Complaints Committee of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers.

The Committee had dismissed a complaint against her but included non-binding advice regarding the clarity of her professional communications.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the issues were moot because the complaint was not referred to the Discipline Committee and the applicant faced no professional jeopardy.

The Court also declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot case, noting the College's concession that it lacked jurisdiction to investigate the decision-making process of a social worker acting as an arbitrator in family law proceedings.

The mother appealed a trial decision ordering joint custody, imputing the father's income for child support, and awarding costs to the father.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the joint custody order was a necessary and appropriate response to the mother's severe gatekeeping behaviour, which included unilateral decision-making and false allegations.

The court also upheld the trial judge's imputation of the father's income based on the available evidence, noting that neither party had provided a professional valuation at trial.

Leave to appeal the costs award was denied.

The appellant father appealed a summary judgment decision finding his child in need of protection and placing her in the custody of the respondent mother.

The child had threatened suicide during access visits, which the motions judge found was proximately caused by the father's inappropriate conduct and obsession with proving parental alienation syndrome.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge made no palpable and overriding error in relying on the available evidence.

The court also noted that the significant delay in perfecting the appeal rendered the requested remedy of a new trial impractical given the child's age and consistent refusal to see the father.

In a child protection appeal, the Office of the Children's Lawyer sought to admit fresh evidence regarding the views and preferences of the nearly 16-year-old child.

The appellant requested an adjournment to file responding evidence and cross-examine the affiant.

The Divisional Court admitted the fresh evidence and denied the adjournment, finding that the appellant had the evidence for two weeks, which was sufficient time to respond with reasonable diligence, and that child protection cases must take priority.

The applicant sought judicial review of an OMERS Appeal Sub-Committee decision that found the respondent was the common-law spouse of the deceased and entitled to his pension death benefits.

The applicant argued the tribunal breached procedural fairness and that its decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court held that while the tribunal's pre-hearing procedures were fair, its written reasons were too brief and conclusory to allow for meaningful review.

The court could not determine if the tribunal properly applied the legal test for common-law status or correctly placed the burden of proof.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The court issued an endorsement regarding costs following a motion.

Applying the principle that costs follow the event and considering the factors in Rules 49 and 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded the respondent costs of $5,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The appellant husband appealed a finding of bad faith made by the motion judge in a family law disclosure motion, but did not appeal the underlying costs order itself.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under section 19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, an appeal lies only from an order, not from a finding alone.

The applicant, Kenora Prospectors & Miners, Limited, sought leave to appeal an order made at a trial management conference that denied it leave to bring a motion to be removed as a party to a family law proceeding.

The applicant argued it was denied the right to be heard on the merits of its request for leave.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the order because the applicant was seemingly denied the opportunity to present its case, and concluding that the right to be heard and the proper conduct of trial management conferences are matters of systemic and public importance.