Chad D. Rawn

The appellant appealed the motion judge's decision to strike his family law claim, alleging procedural fairness denial (denial of cross-examination), improper evaluation of disclosure facts, failure to allow payment of outstanding costs from mutually held funds, and an erroneous equitable remedy granted to a respondent with "unclean hands." The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in any of the appellant's grounds.

The court emphasized the appellant's long-standing failure to provide full financial disclosure, which was necessary for spousal support and equalization issues, and upheld the motion judge's assessment of the appellant's conduct as "outrageous."

The respondent wife brought a motion for temporary spousal support.

The parties were married in India and the applicant husband sponsored the wife to come to Canada, signing a three-year Sponsorship Agreement.

They separated after 14 months of marriage.

The wife was receiving social assistance and retraining as a pharmacy technician.

The court departed from the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines due to the short marriage and the Sponsorship Agreement, conducting a means and needs analysis.

The husband was ordered to pay $1,000 per month in temporary spousal support until June 2022, and $2,500 in costs.

The respondent brought a motion to prevent the applicant from sending their child to a specific school pending arbitration, which was largely unsuccessful.

The applicant sought costs for the motion.

The court found the applicant was presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

After considering the factors, including the applicant's slight delay in responding to the respondent's inquiries, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $2,708.98.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion for the return of the two youngest children to her care after the applicant father unilaterally withheld them.

The court found the father's actions were not in the children's best interests and appeared tactical, taking advantage of the COVID-19 situation.

The court ordered temporary shared parenting, with specific arrangements for the children to spend time with the mother, and directed the parties to use Our Family Wizard for communication.

No temporary custody order was made, and the father's allegations of substance abuse against the mother were unsubstantiated by a hair follicle test.

The applicant mother brought a motion to suspend the respondent father's access to their child, AR, due to his work as an emergency room physician during the COVID-19 pandemic, or alternatively, to enforce the regular school-based access schedule.

The respondent father requested the holiday access schedule.

The court dismissed the motion to suspend access, finding the applicant's evidence inadequate to demonstrate a COVID-19 risk.

The court also rejected both parties' interpretations of the consent order's access provisions during school closures.

Instead, the court ordered equal, shared access on an alternating weekly basis until AR's school reopens, at which point the original school access schedule would resume.

The appellant appealed a trial decision ordering him to pay child support based on an imputed income of $75,000 and dismissing his claim for equalization of net family property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error.

The trial judge's decision to impute income was justified by the appellant's deliberate failure to make financial disclosure, intentional underemployment, and manipulation of documents.

The dismissal of the equalization claim was upheld based on the trial judge's finding that the parties had already settled property division in 2011.

Following a family law trial, the court determined the calculation of child support and arrears based on $11,000 of imputed income to the respondent father from his DJing business.

The court allowed the father's claimed business expenses, finding them reasonable, and calculated his total income using a Divorcemate gross-up.

The court ordered the father to pay $929 in total child support arrears and set ongoing child support at $498 per month, with the imputed income to be indexed annually to inflation.

The parties separated shortly after the birth of their child.

The mother sought sole custody, while the father sought joint custody with a parallel-parenting plan and equal access.

The court found that both parents were loving and capable, but had communication difficulties and a lack of trust.

The court ordered joint custody with a parallel decision-making structure to minimize conflict while ensuring both parents remained meaningfully involved.

Access for the father was increased but not to an equal time-sharing arrangement due to the lengthy commute between the parents' homes.

The court also imputed $11,000 in annual income to the father for his side business as a DJ and ordered retroactive child support, while reducing his ongoing support by $200 per month due to high access costs.

This is a costs endorsement following a four-day trial where the court imputed income to the respondent, ordered child support, and awarded section 7 expenses to the applicant.

The court also found that the parties had previously agreed to equalization of net family properties, dismissing both parties' claims for an equalization payment.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $34,041.25, relying on the respondent's conduct, an offer to settle, and the trial result.

The respondent, who was unsuccessful at trial, sought costs of $30,394.

The court found the trial result was as favourable as or more favourable to the applicant than her offer to settle.

However, the court noted inefficiencies in the applicant's conduct, including delayed filings and an initial claim for equalization that unnecessarily complicated the case.

Consequently, the court declined to award full indemnity costs, fixing partial indemnity costs at $17,500 (inclusive of disbursements and HST), in addition to a previous $1,000 cost order, to be paid to the applicant from funds held in trust.

This trial addressed child support, Section 7 expenses, and equalization of net family property following the parties' divorce.

The court imputed an annual income of $75,000 to the respondent due to intentional underemployment and non-compliance with disclosure orders.

Child support was ordered at $700 per month, retroactive to December 1, 2017.

The respondent was also ordered to pay $3,954 for past Section 7 expenses and 50% of future proper Section 7 expenses.

The court found that the parties had previously settled the equalization of net family property through the division of matrimonial home proceeds in late 2011 and early 2012, dismissing both parties' claims for an equalization payment.

The plaintiff law firm brought a motion to enforce an offer to settle regarding unpaid legal fees and the release of the defendant's matrimonial file.

The firm also sought a declaration of a solicitor's lien and advance payment of its accounts pending assessment.

The court found that the offer to settle had been accepted and ordered the firm to release the file, while directing the defendant to hold funds in trust as security.

The court dismissed the firm's requests for a solicitor's lien and advance payment.

Due to the acrimonious and disproportionate conduct of both counsel, the court declined to award costs to either party.

The applicant father sought to vary a prior custody order under s. 17 of the Divorce Act to obtain sole custody of the parties’ child, relying heavily on an Office of the Children’s Lawyer report recommending a transfer of custody.

The court found the OCL report unreliable because key witnesses were not properly interviewed with interpreters and relevant medical and daycare information was not considered.

Evidence showed the child was thriving in the respondent mother’s care and that allegations of medical neglect and safety concerns involving the mother’s friend were unsupported by the evidence and prior investigations.

The court also found the father not credible and concluded that no material change in circumstances had been established within the meaning of s. 17(5) of the Divorce Act.

Even if a material change had been proven, transferring custody would not have been in the child’s best interests.

The mother sought sole custody of the parties' three-year-old child, while the father sought joint custody.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that the mother's version of events regarding domestic abuse and conflict was credible, supported by corroborating evidence including police reports and domestic violence counselling records.

The court determined that joint custody would be impractical given the parties' inability to communicate effectively and the history of conflict, particularly concerning given the child's young age and exposure to parental conflict.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother while providing the father with direct access to third-party service providers and requiring the mother to seek his input on major decisions, with the mother retaining final decision-making authority.

A motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking to vary a supervision order by placing a young child in the temporary care of the father alone, with restrictions on the mother's contact, following an incident on September 22, 2012 in which the mother sustained a self-inflicted stab wound while extremely intoxicated and engaged in conflict with the father.

The court applied the statutory test under section 64(8) of the Child and Family Services Act, finding that a material change in circumstances had occurred relating to the level of risk to the child, and that the proposed order was in the child's best interests and the least disruptive available option.

The applicant children's aid society sought a finding that a five-year-old child was in need of protection due to a risk of physical harm from the father.

The child made consistent disclosures to police and social workers that the father hit her with a belt and slapped her, and she expressed fear of him.

The parents denied the allegations, claiming the father only rarely spanked the child over two years ago.

The court found the child's disclosures credible and reliable, rejecting the parents' evidence.

The court concluded that the father's excessive physical discipline and the mother's failure to protect the child created a real risk of physical harm, finding the child in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act.

A child protection trial under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning whether a child was in need of protection due to risk of physical harm.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended the child following disclosures of physical and sexual harm by the father.

The society withdrew allegations of sexual harm at trial.

The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the child had been subjected to inappropriate physical discipline by the father, including hitting with a belt on multiple body parts, and that the child had expressed consistent fear of the father.

The court found the threshold for protection was met under clause 37(2)(b) of the Act, finding the father's discipline was excessive and created a risk of physical harm.

The disposition phase was adjourned to a later date.