Bryan R.G. Smith

The moving party sought leave to appeal a family arbitration award under section 45 of the Arbitration Act.

She argued that the arbitration agreement did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the Family Law Act and the Arbitration Act Regulations, and that the arbitrator erred in his findings regarding the valuation date, net family property, spousal support, and occupation rent.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the moving party's complaints regarding the financial issues were questions of mixed fact and law, which are not appealable under the agreement.

The court also held that the technical deficiencies in the arbitration agreement did not invalidate the process, as the parties had acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and participated fully with the assistance of experienced legal counsel.

The wife brought a motion seeking the release of $500,000 from the net proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home to pay her legal and accounting fees.

The husband opposed the release and brought a cross-motion seeking to dismiss the wife's motion for alleged non-compliance with prior orders, requesting alternate security for his equalization claim, and seeking further disclosure and costs thrown away for cancelled questioning.

The court found the wife was not in breach of prior orders and granted the release of $500,000, noting the husband had already received a significant advance from the proceeds.

The court declined to order the wife to pledge her RRSP due to tax consequences but issued a general preservation order over her assets.

The court also ordered the wife to provide further disclosure, fixed dates for questioning, and awarded the husband $2,000 for costs thrown away.

The applicant husband brought a motion for interim spousal support and shared use of a Florida condominium following the breakdown of a 31-year marriage.

The core dispute involved determining the respondent wife's income from her corporation.

The court imputed the wife's income at $720,000 and the husband's at $180,000, ordering the wife to pay $20,000 per month in interim spousal support.

The husband's request for shared use of the Florida condominium was dismissed as he had alternative housing and timeshares available.

The applicant father sought to review and terminate spousal support and adjust child support pursuant to a 2012 Separation Agreement.

The respondent mother sought a retroactive increase in support to 2013, alleging the father hid income from the sale of his business.

The court found no blameworthy conduct by the father and denied the retroactive claim due to the mother's failure to give effective notice.

The court imputed $390,000 in annual income to the mother, finding she was intentionally underemployed and failed to utilize her substantial investment portfolio to generate income, despite her obligations under the Separation Agreement.

Spousal support was ordered to terminate after one additional year, and child support was adjusted prospectively based on the parties' current incomes.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the respondent (N.) was entirely successful.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $99,500, reflecting a reduction from actual time incurred.

The appellant (F.) argued for each party to bear their own costs or for a reduced award, citing excessiveness and limited means.

The Court of Appeal found no special circumstances to warrant either full indemnity costs or no costs, ordering the appellant to pay the respondent $50,000 in all-inclusive costs, consistent with costs following the result and reasonable expectations.

The appellant wife appealed a summary judgment dismissing her application for equalization and spousal support, brought over a decade after their divorce.

She alleged the respondent husband misrepresented his financial position during their divorce negotiations, claiming $0 net worth while bank disclosures showed $21 million.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by: 1) allowing the summary judgment motion without the respondent filing a required answer and financial statement, which is crucial for financial disclosure in family law; and 2) misinterpreting the test for extending limitation periods under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act, by requiring "established fraud" instead of the lower threshold of "apparent grounds for relief" and "good faith" delay.

The court emphasized the paramount importance of financial disclosure in family law proceedings.

The appellant mother brought a motion for a stay of proceedings related to the Court of Appeal's decision, pending her leave to appeal application to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The motion judge granted the stay, finding serious issues of public importance arising from the dissenting opinion, a risk of irreparable harm to the children if the stay was denied (potential separation from the primary caregiver and determination of parenting rights based on gender-based principles in a non-Hague Convention country), and that the balance of convenience favored granting the stay.

The stay was conditional on the mother filing her leave to appeal application within 45 days.

The appellant mother travelled to Ontario from Dubai with her two children for a visit, but subsequently informed the respondent father that she would not return.

The father commenced proceedings in Ontario seeking a return order under s. 40 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The trial judge declined jurisdiction under ss. 22 and 23 of the Act, ordered the children returned to Dubai, and dismissed the mother's constitutional challenges to s. 40(3).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the mother's appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the risk of serious harm under s. 23, and upholding the constitutionality of the return order provision under both division of powers and the Charter.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of Gibson J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

The applicant sought a temporary without prejudice order for child and spousal support.

The respondent argued the motion was barred by a marriage contract that effectively waived spousal support.

The court found a triable issue regarding the enforceability of the contract under the Miglin framework, noting the applicant's inability to work due to cancer and caring for special needs children.

The court imputed an income of $965,000 to the respondent, who had become a non-resident for tax purposes, and ordered him to pay $3,952 per month in child support and $21,423 per month in spousal support, along with section 7 expenses.

This endorsement provides a clarification to an earlier ruling on a pre-trial motion.

The respondent (moving party) had sought to prevent the applicant from raising issues concerning the ownership, control, or valuation of Firm Capital Mortgage Corporation or Door to Door Investments Inc. (FCMC Companies) at trial.

The original motion was dismissed, allowing the applicant to raise these issues.

The clarification emphasizes that this permission does not dictate the manner in which these matters may be raised, the admissibility of evidence, or how evidence may be led.

It also clarifies that the ruling did not address the addition of Marilyn Dadouch or the FCMC Companies as parties, stating that such relief would require a separate motion.

The Respondent sought a pre-trial ruling to preclude the Applicant from raising issues related to the ownership, control, or valuation of certain companies (FCMC Companies) at trial.

The Respondent argued irrelevance, abuse of process due to a parallel civil action, issue estoppel from a prior disclosure motion, lack of necessary parties, and insufficient pleadings.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion, finding the Applicant's claims relevant to net family property and support, no abuse of process as the legal issues differed from the civil action, no issue estoppel as the prior ruling was on disclosure, and no preclusion due to non-joinder of parties or insufficient pleadings, as the Respondent had clear notice of the issues.

Following a trial where the applicant father successfully obtained an order for the return of the parties' children to Dubai, the court determined the issue of costs.

The father sought $486,000 on a partial and full recovery basis, relying on an offer to settle.

The respondent mother argued for no costs or a significantly reduced amount due to her limited financial means.

The court found the father was entitled to costs and had beaten his offer to settle, but fixed costs at $250,000 on a partial indemnity basis to ensure the award was proportionate and within the mother's reasonable expectations and ability to pay.

The appellant appealed a spousal support order of $125,000 per month following a 24-year marriage.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing the respondent's needs and means, misapplied the Halliwell principle for high-income earners, and erred in awarding indefinite support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the respondent's compensatory entitlement, needs, and means, and confirming that the trial judge properly conducted an individualized fact-specific analysis.

In a non-Hague international child retention case, the court held that Ontario lacked jurisdiction under ss. 22 and 23 of the Children’s Law Reform Act to determine custody and access respecting two Canadian children retained in Ontario after a temporary trip from Dubai.

The court found the children were habitually resident in Dubai, there was a pending Dubai proceeding, and the evidence did not establish serious harm if they were returned.

The court also rejected a constitutional challenge to s. 40(3) of the Act, holding that the return-order provision was intra vires Ontario and did not violate ss. 2(a), 6, 7, or 15 of the Charter.

A return order to Dubai was granted, together with ancillary enforcement and sealing-related relief.

In a family law trial concerning whether two young children should be returned to Dubai, the respondent mother brought an application to adduce expert opinion evidence from a psychotherapist.

The proposed evidence concerned the potential emotional and psychological impact on infants separated from their primary caregiver.

The applicant father opposed the admission of the evidence.

Following a voir dire, the court applied the test for expert evidence and found the proposed expert was properly qualified and capable of giving fair, objective, and non-partisan evidence.

The court granted the application, permitting the expert to testify strictly on the potential impact of separation from a primary caregiver, but prohibited her from opining on the specific attachment of the children to either parent.

The parties were in a romantic relationship for nearly 14 years but maintained separate residences.

The trial judge found they were spouses under the Family Law Act and awarded the respondent indefinite spousal support based on the Rule of 65, along with substantial indemnity costs.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the parties were spouses, noting that maintaining separate residences does not preclude a finding of cohabitation.

However, the Court found the trial judge erred in concluding the parties began cohabiting in the first five months of their relationship, meaning the Rule of 65 was not met.

Spousal support was reduced to a 10-year duration.

The costs award was also reduced to partial indemnity, as the appellant's legal position and financial disclosure were deemed reasonable.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The respondent was awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $50,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following a successful appeal of a summary judgment order, a dispute arose regarding the settling of the court's order on costs.

The respondents argued that a portion of the motion judge's costs order related to a support motion should remain intact.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the appellant that the motion judge had awarded a global amount for all motions, which were intertwined.

The court clarified that the entire costs award below was set aside and reserved to the trial judge.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision determining the parties' date of separation for the purpose of property equalization.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to properly assess credibility, made palpable and overriding errors of fact, and demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments were clear, the alleged factual errors were minor and not overriding, and the bias allegation was completely unfounded.