Family and Matrimonial Law

The mother appealed a trial decision that transferred sole custody of her two children to the father due to her relentless campaign of parental alienation.

The trial judge had severely restricted the mother's access, making it conditional on her engaging with a specified expert for counselling and assessment, and ordered a review of access after six months.

The mother also appealed a $160,000 costs award made against her.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge had jurisdiction to order a review, did not impermissibly delegate access determination, and properly exercised her discretion in awarding costs given the mother's bad faith conduct.

The appellant sought to challenge an order requiring her to pay security for costs, failing which her appeal was stayed.

She failed to bring a motion to set aside or vary the order within the required time.

The Divisional Court refused to grant an extension of time, finding no apparent merit to the proposed motion or the underlying appeal, and noting substantial prejudice to the respondent due to the appellant's abusive litigation conduct.

The motion was dismissed and the stay of the appeal continued.

The parties consented to set aside a previous order and agreed that the costs of the set-aside order would be determined by written submissions.

The respondent on appeal had made an offer to settle which the appellant accepted just days before responding materials were due, causing the respondent to incur unnecessary preparation costs.

The court found that the appellant's delay in accepting the offer warranted a costs award in favour of the respondent, fixing costs at $5,000.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside an order quashing his application for judicial review of a family arbitration award.

He argued that recent amendments to the Family Law Act meant family arbitrators exercise a statutory power of decision, giving the court jurisdiction under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, affirming that family arbitrators derive their authority from private consensual agreements, not statute, and therefore do not exercise a statutory power of decision.

The respondent father sought leave to appeal an interim order granting the mother interim custody and permitting her to move to Florida with the children, as well as staying the Ontario proceedings if Florida assumed jurisdiction.

The court found no conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of the interim custody and mobility orders, applying the best interests of the child test.

However, the court granted leave to appeal solely on the issue of whether the Ontario action should be automatically stayed if a Florida court assumes jurisdiction, as this relief was not requested and full submissions were not heard.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order quashing Notices of Garnishment for alleged child support arrears.

The respondent disputed the arrears, claiming he had overpaid, and a default hearing was pending in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision to quash the garnishment pending the determination of the actual arrears.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order regarding spousal support.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge failed to appreciate uncontested evidence that the appellant's income had been reduced by about fifty percent and failed to consult the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG).

Given the lack of reasons, the court owed little deference to the trial judge.

The appeal was allowed, and spousal support was fixed at $525 per month based on the SSAG.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the Divisional Court issued a supplementary endorsement regarding costs.

The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, fixed at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements plus HST.

The costs were directed to be paid to Legal Aid Ontario.

The appellant appealed a family law trial decision, seeking a new trial on the grounds that the trial judge failed to mark an actuary's report as an exhibit, failed to assist her as a self-represented litigant, made errors regarding equalization and pension splitting, and failed to grant a divorce.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the exhibit omission was a harmless technical defect and that the trial judge fulfilled her duties to the self-represented parties.

The court found no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings or discretionary decisions regarding support and equalization.

The appellant father appealed an order making his two children Crown wards without access.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding the children were at risk, failing to consider prior agency assistance under s. 57(2) of the CFSA, and failing to consider less disruptive alternatives under s. 57(3).

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence of ongoing risk due to the father's substance abuse and instability, and concluding the trial judge properly considered both prior assistance and the lack of viable less disruptive alternatives.

The parents appealed a summary judgment order making their child a Crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption.

The child had been in care for her entire life (23 months) and the statutory time limit for temporary wardship had lapsed.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no genuine issue for trial regarding the child's best interests, noting the father's ongoing substance abuse and criminal issues, and the mother's lack of insight into the risk he posed.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for an interim preservation order regarding the matrimonial home pending appeal, the respondent sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that the respondent's offer to settle was more favourable than the judgment and that the applicant's conduct unnecessarily increased costs.

The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $6,500 on a substantial indemnity basis, payable within 30 days.

The applicant Children's Aid Society sought judicial review of a decision by the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The Board had rescinded the Society's decision to refuse an adoption application by the respondent foster parents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's mandate under s. 144 of the Child and Family Services Act allows it to make substantive determinations regarding the best interests of the child, rather than being limited to procedural fairness.

The Court determined the standard of review was reasonableness and found the Board's decision to place the children for adoption with the respondents was reasonable.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought leave to appeal a temporary order that granted care and custody of five children to the respondent mother, subject to conditions granting the Society access to health care and education information.

The Society argued the order improperly divided custody.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, as the conditions were reasonable and authorized by the Child and Family Services Act.

Furthermore, the court held the proposed appeal did not involve matters of public importance.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that adjourned a family law trial to allow the Office of the Children's Lawyer time to investigate and participate.

The moving party argued the adjournment gave the responding party a tactical advantage and that the motion judge misapprehended the evidence.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision and noting the proposed appeal lacked public importance.

The moving party, a solicitor acting for the applicant in a family law proceeding, brought a motion on her own behalf for leave to appeal an interlocutory order citing her for contempt of court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, noting that the solicitor failed to provide a transcript of the proceedings or the reasons for her subsequent contempt conviction.

The court held that the record was entirely inadequate to assess the correctness of the motion judge's decision or to determine whether the alleged contempt was civil or criminal, thereby failing to establish the court's jurisdiction.

The mother sought leave to appeal an interim order that transferred the primary residence of the child to the father.

The motion judge had relied heavily on a report from the Office of the Children's Lawyer, which raised serious concerns about the mother's mental health, specifically her schizophrenia and medication non-compliance.

The mother argued that the motion judge erred in relying on the untested report to change the status quo prior to trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the interim decision and noting that the case was fact-driven and did not raise matters of public importance warranting appellate review.

The appellant father appealed an order requiring him to pay retroactive base child support and proportional childcare expenses.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence of an updated Family Responsibility Office statement showing a $5,802 overpayment.

The Divisional Court admitted the fresh evidence to ensure a just outcome, despite the appellant's lack of due diligence.

The court dismissed the substantive appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision to award retroactive support, but corrected a mathematical error in the calculation of the respondent mother's income, reducing the appellant's childcare expense arrears.

The appellant was credited for the overpayment.

The appellant appealed an order that denied retroactive child support and set ongoing support at $45.00 per month.

The Divisional Court found that the motions judge made palpable and overriding errors by relying on unsworn submissions from unrepresented parties, failing to consider retroactive support for one of the children, and arbitrarily reducing the appellant's employment expenses without reasons.

The appeal was allowed, the order set aside, and the matter remitted for rehearing with directions for full financial disclosure.

The appellant appealed an interim order for spousal and child support, arguing the motions judge erred by including $100,000 from a share redemption as income available for support.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the Child Support Guidelines to attribute corporate income to a sole shareholder.

The court also admitted fresh evidence that confirmed the availability of the funds, noting any necessary adjustments could be made at the upcoming trial.