Audrey Lee

The parties separated after a short marriage.

The applicant wife had purchased the matrimonial home primarily with her own funds prior to the marriage.

Following separation, the respondent husband surreptitiously purchased the home through a numbered company and later transferred it to his sister for no consideration to defeat the applicant's claims.

The court ordered an unequal division of net family property in favour of the applicant due to the short duration of the marriage and her disproportionate financial contributions.

The court imputed income to the respondent for the purposes of child and spousal support due to his failure to provide adequate financial disclosure.

The court also set aside the transfer of the home to the respondent's sister as a fraudulent conveyance, but dismissed the applicant's claims for the tort of conspiracy and a vesting order.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking to amend her application to claim a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against the former matrimonial home and to add the husband's sister as a respondent.

The wife alleged two fraudulent conveyances: first, the husband secretly purchased the matrimonial home through a corporation he owned, and second, he transferred the property from the corporation to his sister without consideration.

The court granted the CPL and added the sister as a party, finding a high probability of the wife succeeding on her claims for an unequal division of net family property and support.

The court emphasized the husband's surreptitious conduct, non-disclosure, and lack of assets as factors favoring the CPL, and ordered the husband to pay costs.

The respondent father moved for partition and sale of a jointly owned home and occupation rent.

The applicant mother opposed, claiming unjust enrichment due to her payment of carrying costs and renovations, arguing the sale should await trial for a proprietary remedy.

The court ordered the sale of the home, finding no malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct by the father.

It dismissed the mother's unjust enrichment claim regarding the increased value of the home, stating that unilateral improvements do not create an obligation for the other party to forgo their share of appreciation.

The court awarded the father occupation rent from October 2020 (when he initiated legal steps for sale) and ordered the father to contribute to post-separation carrying costs and agreed renovation expenses.

This family law trial addressed decision-making authority, child travel, primary residence, parenting time, and spousal/child support for a separated couple with one child.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making authority, allowed her to travel with the child for up to 30 days annually without the father's consent, and confirmed the child's primary residence with the mother (with a GTA restriction).

The father's parenting time was gradually expanded.

The mother was found entitled to spousal support on contractual and compensatory grounds, with the father ordered to pay time-limited support of $373 per month for two years.

Retroactive spousal support was denied due to the father's financial hardship.

Child support was set at $543 per month based on an imputed income for the father.

The appellant brought a motion to set aside a motion judge's order that dismissed his request for an extension of time to perfect his appeal.

The motion judge had noted the appellant previously missed an extended deadline, the appeal lacked merit, and the appellant's pleadings had been struck below.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle in the motion judge's exercise of discretion and dismissed the motion with costs.

Following the breakdown of a 15-year cohabitation and 14-year marriage, the parties settled parenting issues but disputed financial matters.

After a nine-day trial, the trial judge made orders regarding equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, and spousal and child support, but declined to order disposition of a cottage property on First Nation land.

The father appealed nearly all orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility findings regarding the father's lack of candor and dishonesty were entitled to deference, and that her decisions on equalization, support, and section 7 expenses were properly reasoned and supported by evidence.

The applicant commenced a family law application for support and equalization.

When the respondent failed to file an answer within 30 days, the applicant brought a motion in writing without notice to note the respondent in default and proceed to an undefended trial.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing that the primary objective of the Family Law Rules requires ensuring the process is fair and that the respondent has received proper notice.

The court directed the applicant to attempt communication, serve the endorsement and a guide to family cases, and schedule a case conference on notice.

The respondent father sought a summary decision on whether the Ontario Court of Justice had jurisdiction to make a new child support order or retroactively vary child support provisions of a Colombian divorce order dated November 7, 2006.

The father argued that since Colombia is not a reciprocating jurisdiction under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, the mother had no recourse in Ontario and must seek relief in Colombia.

The mother argued that Ontario had jurisdiction based on real and substantial connection and forum of necessity, as she and the child had been permanently resident in Ontario since 2014, and the father had attorned to Ontario's jurisdiction regarding custody and access.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction to determine child support, distinguishing the case from precedents involving forum shopping and applying the Muscutt jurisdictional factors.

The respondent in the main action brought a motion for temporary spousal support and further financial disclosure.

The applicant opposed, arguing the parties were never spouses under the Family Law Act and that a previous $60,000 payment satisfied any obligation.

The court found the moving party established a prima facie case for support based on her residency in the responding party's home and financial dependence.

The court ordered the responding party to pay $1,600 monthly in temporary support based on an acknowledged income of $134,000.

On the disclosure issue, the court gave the responding party 30 days to engage an expert income analyst before mandating the extensive corporate disclosure requested.