Barry M. Tobin

The applicant wife sought an equalization of net family property, child support, spousal support, and tort damages for intimate partner violence.

The respondent husband claimed the marriage was a nullity based on immigration fraud.

The court dismissed the nullity claim, finding the marriage genuine.

The court ordered an equalization payment of $411,499.45 to the wife and found her entitled to spousal support.

The claim for child support was dismissed as the husband did not stand in the place of a parent.

The court awarded the wife $40,000 in damages for the tort of intimate partner violence due to the husband's coercive and controlling behaviour.

Following a 14-day family law trial, the court determined the outstanding issues of child support arrears, prejudgment interest, and costs.

The court declined to award the husband prejudgment interest on the equalization payment and child support arrears due to his failure to provide timely financial disclosure.

On the issue of costs, the court found the wife was the more successful party overall, though success was divided.

The husband was ordered to pay $50,000 in costs to the wife, reflecting his unreasonable behaviour in failing to make offers to settle and delaying disclosure.

The parties separated after a seven-year marriage.

The central issues at trial were the equalization of net family properties, the determination of the respondent's income for child support purposes under a shared parenting arrangement, and the respondent's claim for spousal support.

The court determined the value of the matrimonial home and various debts, ordering the applicant to pay a net equalization payment of $48,231.06.

Both parties' claims for an unequal division of net family property were dismissed.

The court imputed income to the self-employed respondent due to his failure to provide adequate financial disclosure and ordered the applicant to pay $600 per month in child support based on a set-off calculation.

The respondent's claim for spousal support was dismissed as he failed to establish entitlement on either a compensatory or non-compensatory basis.

The parties, both self-represented, sought a parenting order and child support for their seven-year-old child.

The mother requested primary residence and alternate weekend parenting time for the father, while the father sought to maintain the existing week-about shared parenting schedule.

The court ordered joint decision-making responsibility and continued the week-about shared parenting schedule, finding it to be in the child's best interests.

The court also imputed income to the mother, who had taken a leave of absence to pursue education, and ordered set-off child support based on the parties' respective incomes.

The father brought a motion to change a final parenting and child support order, seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary care of the parties' two children.

The mother sought to redefine parenting time and requested retroactive child support based on imputed income.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the older child's resistance to parenting time and the children's mental health diagnoses.

The court ordered that the mother retain decision-making responsibility and primary care, while granting the father expanded weekend parenting time.

The court also imputed income to the father due to his failure to provide financial disclosure, ordering retroactive child support from July 1, 2020, and ongoing support based on an imputed income of $62,000.

In competing family law motions, the moving party sought permission to move the children’s residence to another city, change schools, and change dentists, while the responding party sought dismissal and argued the move constituted a relocation engaging heightened statutory requirements.

Applying the Divorce Act framework, the court held the proposed move was a change in residence, not a relocation, because with schedule and transportation adjustments it was not likely to significantly impact the children’s relationship with the non-moving parent.

The court found written notice requirements were met and concluded the proposed parenting and care plan was in the children’s best interests.

Temporary terms were set for pickup/return logistics and weekday parenting end times.

The moving party’s requests were granted and the cross-motion was dismissed.

This decision concerns a status review application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, regarding a five-year-old child, M.M. The Court found that the child remained in need of protection and ordered her placement in extended society care with the Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex.

The Court considered the plans of both the father and the Society, ultimately determining that the Society’s plan best met the child’s best interests, including permanency and stability.

The decision also addresses access arrangements for the parents and paternal grandmother, balancing the preservation of family relationships with the child’s need for permanency.

This decision concerns a motion to change a parenting order under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court finds a material change in circumstances since the original order, including ongoing conflict, family violence, and the child's exposure to harm.

The mother is granted sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the child, with the father receiving specified parenting time.

The court also addresses child support, imputing income to the father based on available evidence, and sets out a detailed parenting schedule and related orders.

This decision addresses interim parenting arrangements and school registration for the child of Jason Kyle Sheedy and Karen Nadine Shackelton following their separation.

The court considered the best interests of the child, the parties' conflicting evidence, and the need for stability.

The court ordered that the child be enrolled at Caradoc Public School and set out a detailed interim parenting schedule, balancing time between both parents and emphasizing the importance of following court orders.

This decision resolves a range of family law issues following the separation of Mei Yee Lau and Wing Hong Tao, including parenting time, child support, property division, and the treatment of gifts and loans from family members.

The court determined the best interests of the children required a parenting schedule closely aligned with the mother's proposal, found the date of separation to be December 24, 2019, and addressed the tracing and exclusion of gifted property under the Family Law Act.

The court also considered the treatment of RESPs, imputed income to the mother for child support purposes, and made orders for equalization and post-separation adjustments.

The applicant mother sought both ongoing and retroactive child support from the respondent father, as well as a determination of the father's contribution to special and extraordinary expenses under section 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court fixed the date of separation as August 10, 2018, and, after considering the relevant factors, ordered retroactive child support from January 1, 2020, in the amount of $37,500, to be paid in installments.

The court also ordered the father to pay 72% of certain section 7 expenses, both retroactively and prospectively, and set out a detailed parenting plan and holiday schedule.

A divorce was granted.

The respondent, Christopher Eric Waltham, brought a motion to change a 2005 child support order, seeking termination of his obligation retroactive to the child's 18th birthday and a reduction of arrears.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the respondent's health issues and ODSP qualification.

Despite late formal notice, the court exercised discretion to retroactively decrease support to January 1, 2017, citing the respondent's understandable fear of the applicant.

The child support obligation was terminated as of August 31, 2018, as the child was no longer a minor, not in full-time education, and not unable to withdraw from parental charge.

Arrears were recalculated and significantly reduced, with most held funds to be returned to the respondent.

This is Part 2 of a judgment resolving outstanding family law issues following initial findings.

The court determined retrospective and ongoing child and spousal support payments, the tax treatment of retroactive spousal support, and the duration of spousal support.

It also addressed equalization payment calculations, including contingent tax liabilities on corporate and cottage assets, and post-equalization adjustments related to a joint line of credit.

The court clarified that new expert reports not presented at trial could not be relied upon for proving contingent tax liabilities.

The applicant mother sought an order to relocate the parties' two children to Italy for a 10-month school year to advance her career.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and brought a cross-motion for interim decision-making authority and primary residence.

The court, applying the best interests of the child framework from the Divorce Act and Barendregt v Grebliunas, found the mother's relocation plan reasonable and in the children's best interests, considering her career advancement, the temporary nature of the move, and her detailed plan for maintaining the father's parenting time.

The father's cross-motion was dismissed, and the mother was granted permission to obtain passports for the children without the father's consent.

Travel costs were apportioned 75% to the mother and 25% to the father.

The parties separated after a 24-year marriage.

The wife brought an application for property division, child support, and spousal support.

The court found that the husband had a 50% beneficial interest in a corporation registered solely in the wife's name, based on the presumption of resulting trust and the parties' intention to accumulate wealth jointly.

The court ordered the corporation's assets sold and proceeds divided equally.

The court also determined the husband's income for child support purposes by attributing a portion of the pre-tax income of his corporations to him, balancing his historical investment strategy with his support obligations.

The wife was found entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory bases, with the amount and duration to be determined based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The applicant father sought to change existing parenting orders, requesting sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, a 120-day no-contact period for the mother, and a police enforcement order, alleging the mother was alienating the children.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking to suspend or supervise the father's parenting time, citing the children's resistance due to the father's alleged behavior.

The Children's Lawyer did not support either drastic request, suggesting clinical intervention.

The court dismissed both motions, finding insufficient evidence to support a drastic change in parenting arrangements on an interim basis, and ordered existing parenting orders to continue with attempts at contact, emphasizing the need for clinical intervention and judicial oversight.

The applicant father brought a contempt motion against the respondent mother, alleging she failed to comply with court orders regarding parenting time and telephone contact with their two children.

The court reviewed the history of parenting time issues, including incidents where the children did not transition to the father's care and conflicting accounts of the mother's efforts to facilitate contact.

Applying the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for contempt, the court found that while the children were not in the father's care on certain dates, the father failed to prove the mother intentionally breached the orders, except for one instance due to a family emergency, for which no contempt finding was warranted.

The court also found ambiguity in some order provisions regarding telephone calls and parenting time exchanges.

The father's contempt motion was dismissed, with the court emphasizing that contempt is a tool of last resort, especially in family law, and that the best interests of the children are paramount.

The Superior Court of Justice heard a family law trial concerning parenting, child support, spousal support, and a tort claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The court granted a divorce, established joint decision-making responsibility with the mother having final authority, and set a parenting schedule with the mother as primary caregiver during the school year and week-about time during summer.

Child support was ordered based on the father's income.

The mother was found entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and needs bases, but no amount was ordered due to the father's inability to pay after child support.

The mother's claim for damages for intentional infliction of mental suffering was dismissed as the father's conduct, while insensitive, was not found to be flagrant, outrageous, or calculated to cause harm.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the two children in Toronto, along with child support and communication limits.

The father sought sole decision-making and primary residence in London, and child support.

Both parties also sought to set aside a separation agreement and obtain a divorce.

The court found that the mother had experienced family violence from the father, which impacted her ability to communicate directly.

Considering the children's best interests, including their stability in Toronto and the mother's primary caregiver role, the court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence.

The father was granted defined parenting time, and specific communication protocols were ordered.

Child support was ordered based on the father's income, and spousal support was terminated as per the mother's request.

A divorce order was also issued.

The mother, a Jordanian citizen, brought the parties' three children from Kuwait to Ontario and sought a parenting order.

The father, residing in Kuwait, challenged Ontario's jurisdiction and sought the return of the children pursuant to Kuwaiti custody orders.

The court found that while the children were not habitually resident in Ontario at the time the application commenced, Ontario had jurisdiction under s. 22(1)(b) of the Children's Law Reform Act due to the children's physical presence, substantial connection, and the balance of convenience.

Alternatively, the court found jurisdiction under s. 23, as the children would suffer serious harm if returned to Kuwait due to the risk of psychological harm, family violence, and the children's strong views against returning.

The father's request to recognize the Kuwaiti orders was dismissed.