Family and Matrimonial Law

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On consent of the parties, the motion for leave to appeal was withdrawn without costs.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 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 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 applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario denying him access to his son's personal health information held by a family services agency.

The applicant argued he was entitled to the records under the Divorce Act and various privacy statutes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicator's decisions to be reasonable.

The court upheld the adjudicator's findings that the Divorce Act did not mandate disclosure and that the agency properly exercised its discretion in considering the best interests of the child and the applicant's motives.

The moving party brought motions for leave to appeal two orders of the lower court.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal specific paragraphs of the orders dated June 27, 2022, and November 29, 2022.

Costs of the motions were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Shore J. dated March 21, 2023.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and made no order as to costs.

The moving party sought the release of a transcript of a case conference held in the context of family law proceedings, which led to a motion for child support.

The motion was unopposed.

The court ordered the release of the transcript and approved the parties' proposed timetable for serving and filing materials on the leave to appeal motion.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

The appellant appealed an order directing the partition and sale of the parties' matrimonial home.

The appellant also brought a preliminary motion to introduce fresh evidence regarding his medical condition and the difficulty of finding alternative accommodation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for fresh evidence, finding it could have been obtained with due diligence prior to the original hearing.

The court also dismissed the appeal, concluding the motion judge made no palpable and overriding error in finding that partition and sale would not prejudice the appellant's substantive rights and that the respondent's motion was not frivolous or vexatious.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order directing the partition and sale of the parties' matrimonial home and dismissing her cross-motion for temporary exclusive possession.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge applied the correct legal test, balancing the prima facie right to sale against potential prejudice, and appropriately considered the status quo of the parties and their adult children.

Finding no palpable and overriding error or error of law, the court dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the respondent.

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 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 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 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 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 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.