Carolyn J. Horkins

A non-party brought a motion to be added as a respondent or, alternatively, to be granted leave to intervene in a family law application concerning parenting time and decision-making authority for a child.

The non-party is the biological father of the respondent's older child and has developed a close relationship with the subject child through his co-parenting arrangement with the respondent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the non-party did not meet the statutory criteria under the Children's Law Reform Act or the procedural requirements under the Family Law Rules for being added as a party or for intervention.

The court held that the non-party had no legal interest in the application and that his presence was not necessary to determine the issues between the applicant and respondent.

The applicant, Miguel Angel Delgado Sanchez, brought an application seeking a declaration of interest in the former matrimonial home, nullification of a 2003 title transfer to the respondent, Nora Belen Tello-Sotomarino, and other relief, alleging concealed fraud.

The respondent brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss these claims as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and the Real Property Limitation Act.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the applicant's inconsistent evidence regarding the alleged fraud and his admission that his signature on the transfer documents was genuine.

The court concluded there was no factual foundation for concealed fraud to trigger an extension of the limitation period.

The applicant's claims were dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant father sought increased parenting time for their child, proposing a 2-2-3 schedule, following his relocation to Windsor to be closer to the child.

The respondent mother opposed this, seeking less parenting time for the father and a Section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act, citing concerns about the father's conduct and alleged physical discipline.

The court dismissed the mother's request for a Section 30 assessment, finding it unnecessary, and granted the father's request for a 2-2-3 parenting schedule, emphasizing the child's best interests, including the child's expressed wish for equal time with both parents and the need to reduce parental conflict.

The applicant father brought a motion under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for the return of the child to France, alleging wrongful removal by the respondent mother.

The mother argued the child was habitually resident in Canada and that returning the child to France posed a grave risk of harm.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in France immediately prior to the removal and that the mother's evidence did not meet the high threshold for the grave risk exception under Article 13(b).

The court ordered the child's forthwith return to France.

The applicant wife brought a motion to sever the divorce from corollary relief, obtain an order for an Islamic religious divorce, and seek security for costs.

The respondent husband opposed, arguing that a divorce would prejudice his annulment claim and property division.

The court found no legal basis for the annulment claim, as the evidence did not support non-consummation or fraud for immigration purposes as grounds for annulment.

The court granted the divorce severance and ordered the respondent to cooperate in obtaining the Islamic religious divorce, noting these orders would not prejudice the respondent's property claims.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the respondent lacked assets to pay costs, despite the respondent's unreasonable conduct and an unpaid prior costs order.

The court determined costs for previous motions where the applicant mother's motion was dismissed and the respondent father's responding motion was successful.

The father sought full recovery costs due to the mother's unreasonable behaviour and his offer to settle being exceeded.

The court found the mother's conduct unreasonable, including ignoring a separation agreement and proposing unsafe travel for children during COVID-19, but not rising to bad faith.

Considering the father's superior offer to settle and the mother's unreasonable conduct, the court fixed the father's costs at $6,500, inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's order finding her child in need of protection due to parental alienation and false allegations of abuse against the father.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's application of the best interests of the child test under the CYFSA, specifically regarding the weight given to the child's views, consideration of relevant risk factors, delegation of future access decisions to the Children's Aid Society, and the issuance of a no-recording order.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the child's views were not independent due to the mother's brainwashing, that the risk of emotional harm to the child if remaining with the mother was overwhelming, and that the discretionary access order and no-recording order were within the court's jurisdiction and in the child's best interests.

The Applicant (wife) proceeded with an undefended trial seeking final orders for custody, child support, spousal support, and equalization of property.

The parties, Lebanese nationals, were married for 30 years and had significant assets in Venezuela and Lebanon.

The Respondent (husband) had left Canada for Lebanon, refused to provide disclosure, and indicated he would not comply with Canadian court orders.

The court imputed an income of $189,444 to the Respondent.

The court granted sole custody of the youngest child to the Applicant, ordered lump sum spousal support ($1,091,699), lump sum child support ($121,788), lump sum s. 7 expenses ($67,000), and an equalization payment ($3,200,543.46), totaling $4,486,518.39 CDN.

The court ordered the Respondent to transfer his share of specific foreign bank accounts to the Applicant to satisfy the debt, citing his bad faith and non-compliance.

Costs of $13,291.63 were awarded to the Applicant due to the Respondent's bad faith.

The Applicant wife brought a motion for ex parte relief, including a restraining order on assets.

Despite multiple adjournments and court orders for disclosure, the Respondent husband failed to comply, did not file an Answer, and ceased participation, pursuing proceedings in Lebanon.

The court found the Respondent's conduct to be in bad faith and ordered that the Applicant proceed to an uncontested trial, continued the restraining and disclosure orders, granted temporary spousal support of $4,504 per month, and awarded full recovery costs of $32,154.28 to the Applicant.

The mother appealed a child protection order placing her child in extended society care with no access, following a trial where the child was found to have suffered serious unexplained injuries.

She raised three grounds: ineffective counsel, the trial judge's incorrect application of the "unexplained injury principle," and the application of an outdated legal test for access.

The court dismissed the first two grounds, finding no miscarriage of justice regarding ineffective counsel and affirming the correct application of the unexplained injury principle.

However, the court allowed the third ground, agreeing that the trial judge erred in applying an outdated legal test for access under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

Despite this legal error, the appellate court exercised its jurisdiction to decide the access issue itself, concluding that it was not in the child's best interests to order access for the mother, given the history of serious unexplained injuries and the mother's acknowledged risk.

The court issued an addendum to its May 15, 2020 judgment, which had ordered the return of children to Warsaw, Poland, under the Hague Convention.

Due to COVID-19 travel complications, the parties could not agree on a return date.

The father sought return by July 15, 2020, while the mother requested a delay until late August 2020, citing safety concerns and inability to afford airfare.

The court ordered the children's return by July 31, 2020, finding no evidence to justify further delay.

The father offered to pay 50% of the children's economy airfare.

The court also directed the mother to contact the Polish consulate for travel documents and ensure compliance with the return order, with law enforcement authorized to assist.

The applicant sought to expand an ex parte restraining order and obtain disclosure from the respondent, who had allegedly dissipated assets and commenced divorce proceedings in foreign jurisdictions.

The respondent disputed the Ontario court's jurisdiction and sought an adjournment.

The court granted the applicant's requests for disclosure and a stay of foreign proceedings as reasonable and necessary terms for the adjournment, finding that Ontario had jurisdiction under the Divorce Act based on the applicant's evidence.

The respondent father applied for the return of his children to Poland under the Hague Convention, alleging wrongful removal by the applicant mother.

The mother admitted wrongful removal but sought to rely on the grave risk and child's objection exceptions under Article 13(b) and 13(2).

The court found that the mother failed to meet the high threshold for the grave risk exception, noting that her allegations of abuse were not substantiated by Polish courts and her own actions contradicted her claims.

The court also found that the children's objections were not sufficiently mature or independent to trigger the Article 13(2) exception.

Consequently, the court ordered the forthwith return of the children to Poland and denied the mother's request for conditions on their return.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion to reduce child and spousal support, claiming a 42% income reduction due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant mother opposed.

The court, after reviewing additional evidence, determined the motion was not urgent.

The judge noted the respondent's controlling share in his company, lack of detailed evidence for alleged rental income loss, and existing savings, emphasizing that he was not in arrears.

The court dismissed the motion, stating that limited judicial resources during the pandemic must be reserved for truly urgent cases and that the motion sought to determine ultimate trial issues.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion seeking orders for spousal support, striking the respondent's Answer, and permission to proceed to an uncontested trial with affidavit evidence.

The respondent had consistently failed to provide financial disclosure and comply with multiple court orders since the parties' separation in 2012.

The court found the respondent's non-compliance to be exceptional and egregious, accepting the applicant's detailed evidence as fact due to the respondent's inadequate response.

The motion was allowed, with the court imputing income to the respondent for spousal support calculation and striking his Answer, allowing the applicant to proceed to an undefended trial.

The appellant, Richard Smith, appealed an arbitral award that set aside a paragraph of Minutes of Settlement due to his failure to make full disclosure of significant stock option income.

The Arbitrator found that Mr. Smith's disclosure created "information asymmetry" by not clearly presenting the $1.1 million stock option income in his financial statements and affidavits, despite it appearing on attached pay stubs.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Arbitrator's finding that Mr. Smith did not fulfill his positive duty of full and honest disclosure, as required by Rick v. Brandsema.

The court rejected the appellant's arguments that the Arbitrator made palpable and overriding errors of fact or erred in law by relieving the respondent of her duty to inquire, emphasizing that the onus to inquire only shifts after complete and unambiguous disclosure.

Dina Barrese brought a motion to disqualify Niman Gelgoot & Associates (NGA) from acting as counsel for Dominic Barrese, her former husband.

Dina had contacted NGA twice (in 2016 and 2019) with the intention of retaining them, disclosing sensitive personal and confidential information.

NGA subsequently accepted Dominic as a client.

The court applied the MacDonald Estate v. Martin test, finding that a previous solicitor-client relationship existed between Dina and NGA, leading to an inference that confidential information was imparted.

NGA failed to discharge the difficult burden of proving no relevant information was imparted.

The court emphasized the appearance of impropriety, especially in family law disputes, and granted the disqualification order.

The applicant mother (C.A.) brought a motion to strike the respondent father's (K.G.) motion to change a 2014 final court order.

K.G.'s motion sought to terminate spousal support, reduce child support, change primary residence of children, and set support arrears to zero.

C.A. alleged K.G. had a long-standing pattern of non-compliance with court orders and disclosure obligations, including significant support arrears and failure to maintain life insurance.

The court reviewed K.G.'s history of non-compliance, inconsistent financial disclosure, and evidence from his former spouse (H.W.) which contradicted his financial claims.

Applying Family Law Rule 1(8)(c) and appellate guidance, the court found exceptional circumstances justifying striking K.G.'s motion to change, emphasizing the fundamental duty of financial disclosure and the "real harm" caused by persistent non-compliance.

Alternative remedies were deemed insufficient given K.G.'s repeated failures.

The applicant mother sought costs following a successful trial where she obtained sole custody, supervised access, and a higher imputed income for the respondent father, exceeding her offer to settle.

The respondent father had engaged in bad faith conduct throughout the application, including refusing to comply with Family Law Rules and court orders, claiming to be a "sovereign," and failing to provide financial disclosure.

The court found the applicant was entitled to full recovery costs due to beating her offer to settle and the respondent's bad faith conduct, fixing costs at $36,122.72.

The applicant, Galo Angulo, brought a motion to change a 2004 final order requiring him to pay spousal support, seeking termination of support and life insurance obligations due to his retirement.

The respondent, Shirley Angulo, brought a cross-motion seeking extensive financial disclosure, retroactive spousal support arrears, and an increase in ongoing spousal support, alleging Galo retired to evade payments.

The court found Galo's retirement at age 68, with outdated skills and health issues, constituted a reasonable material change in circumstances.

The court denied Shirley's requests for disclosure and retroactive arrears, finding her claims speculative and her delay in seeking arrears unconvincing.

The court emphasized the parties' separation agreement clause requiring them to rely on their capital for support in retirement.

Spousal support and the life insurance obligation were terminated effective April 30, 2019.