Daniel Walker

The applicant brought a motion to enforce minutes of settlement resolving equalization and lump sum spousal support following a family law settlement conference.

The court held that non-compliance with the formal witnessing and signature requirements for domestic contracts under the Family Law Act did not preclude enforcement of an authorized litigation settlement reached through counsel.

Applying the objective settlement-formation inquiry, the court found a meeting of the minds, consensus on all essential terms, and no condition that the agreement depend on settlement of collateral issues.

The respondent failed to establish that enforcement of the lump sum spousal support term would be unconscionable, improvident, or unjust, particularly given the negotiated job-loss risk language and the respondent's continued affirmation of the settlement after anticipating an income reduction.

The motion was granted and the settlement terms were enforced.

A Hague Convention application for the return of a child to Hong Kong was commenced in June 2025.

The respondent in the underlying Hague application sought an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, pending the outcome of a refugee application before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer supported the adjournment request; the applicant vigorously opposed it.

The court, acting as case management judge, denied the adjournment, holding that Hague Convention applications must proceed expeditiously as judge-led proceedings in accordance with Balev and Rule 37.2 of the Family Law Rules.

The court found no blanket prohibition against proceeding while a refugee application is pending, and held that indefinitely deferring the Hague hearing would risk the child aging out of the Convention's protection and breach Canada's international obligations.

The court considered whether to recognize and enforce a UK court order appointing deputies for the property and affairs of Marija Jurate Danilunas, who resides in England but has significant assets in Ontario.

The applicants sought either full recognition of the UK order or, alternatively, an ancillary order permitting them to access and use Ms. Danilunas’s Ontario assets.

The court reviewed the statutory and common law framework for recognition of foreign guardianship orders, the competing values of autonomy and protection of the vulnerable, and the public policy implications.

Ultimately, the court recognized and enforced the UK order, finding that the process and protections in the UK were sufficiently robust and that no public policy or procedural concerns justified refusing recognition.

This costs endorsement followed a motion for directions under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 concerning powers of attorney, disclosure, protective relief, and a capacity assessment.

The court held that the respondent was overall successful because she successfully opposed nearly all of the relief sought, although the court had ordered appointment of s. 3 counsel and a capacity assessment.

Applying the Rule 57 costs factors, the court found the respondent's claimed partial indemnity costs were within the applicant's reasonable expectation and fixed costs at $8,000 inclusive.

The costs were ordered payable by the applicant within 30 days.

On a motion within a Substitute Decisions Act guardianship dispute between siblings, the court addressed interim directions concerning an elderly mother's capacity, legal representation, disclosure, and protective relief.

The court held that s. 3 counsel should be arranged and that a capacity assessment should be ordered under s. 79 because the evidentiary record, including geriatric psychiatric evidence, provided reasonable grounds to believe the person was incapable.

The court declined immediate production of medical and solicitor files, examinations of the lawyers, disclosure of the person's location, apprehension and relocation orders, and tracing or preservation relief, finding those measures premature and unduly invasive absent a capacity declaration.

The court instead ordered unfettered access for s. 3 counsel, limited production of records sought by the assessor, and facilitated telephone communication.

The moving party respondent sought leave to appeal an order of Myers J. dated October 31, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 payable to the responding party/applicants and $5,000 payable to the respondents Hsin Hua Hsieh and Ying Ting Lin, for a total costs award of $10,000.

The Ontario Trustee applied for an order approving the sale of estate farmland and a vesting order.

The respondent beneficiaries opposed the sale and brought a counter-application to remove the trustee.

The court found the trustee breached his fiduciary duties by failing to confer with the designated beneficiary before selling the property, and by pre-taking compensation and registering a mortgage against the property without authorization.

The court dismissed the trustee's application for a vesting order, finding he did not come to court with clean hands, and granted the counter-application to remove and replace him as trustee.

The applicant mother commenced family law proceedings in Ontario less than one year after the parties moved from Germany.

The respondent father challenged the court's jurisdiction.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction to grant a divorce under the Divorce Act because the one-year residency requirement was not met at the time of issuance.

However, the court granted the mother leave to amend her application to claim decision-making responsibility, child support, spousal support, and property division under provincial legislation (CLRA and FLA), finding a real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The court dismissed the father's forum non conveniens argument, holding that Ontario was the appropriate forum.

On the mother's cross-motion for interim support, the court imputed income to the father on a graduated basis up to $180,000, finding him intentionally underemployed, and ordered interim child and spousal support.

The applicants brought a motion for directions regarding four potential testamentary documents left by the deceased.

The court found that a 2000 holograph will was valid, but subsequent unsigned alterations increasing specific bequests were invalid.

A 2009 handwritten document was found to be a valid codicil that revoked the bequest of the residue to the deceased's estranged daughter.

This revocation resulted in a partial intestacy regarding the residue.

Despite the deceased's clear intention in the 2009 codicil to disinherit his daughter, the court held that under section 47(1) of the Succession Law Reform Act, the daughter was entitled to the residue as the sole surviving issue on intestacy.

The appellant appealed a 14‑day custodial sentence imposed following a conviction for impaired driving.

The appellate court held that the sentencing judge committed several errors in principle, including failing to properly consider the sentencing principles of proportionality and parity under ss. 718.1 and 718.2(b) of the Criminal Code, rejecting comparable case law without analysis, relying on statistical data independently obtained without notice to counsel, and improperly criticizing the offender for obtaining employment prior to sentencing when denying an intermittent sentence.

These errors undermined the fairness and reliability of the sentencing process.

The custodial sentence was set aside and replaced with a fine, probation with conditions, and a driving prohibition.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual assault of two children (his stepchild and biological child), counselling another person to make child pornography, and possessing child pornography.

The offences involved possession of hundreds of explicit images of children, online communications requesting specific sexual acts be performed on children, and direct sexual contact with his own children.

The court imposed a global sentence of approximately six years, comprising a three-year penitentiary sentence plus credit for pre-plea custody exceeding twenty-three months, with concurrent sentences for the various offences.

The court also imposed a ten-year prohibition order, DNA order, ten-year internet restriction order, and required compliance with sex offender registration.

The accused was charged with impaired driving following a roadside screening device test administered at a RIDE stop.

The trial raised two key issues: (1) whether the approved screening device test was administered within a reasonable timeframe given concerns about mouth alcohol affecting the reliability of the results, and (2) whether the test was administered forthwith as required by statute.

The Crown alleged the accused had consumed one beer approximately 10-15 minutes before the stop.

The defence argued the accused had consumed the beer immediately before leaving the bar, approximately 11 minutes before the stop, and that the officer failed to wait a sufficient period to ensure mouth alcohol had dissipated.

The court found the officer acted reasonably in waiting approximately eight minutes before administering the test, which was consistent with the officer's belief that the accused had finished his beer 10-15 minutes prior to the stop.

The court rejected the accused's evidence and accepted the officer's testimony regarding what the accused had stated about his alcohol consumption.

A 17-year-old youth was found guilty of attempting to murder his 8-year-old foster sibling by slitting the child's throat while the child slept.

The youth called 911 and turned himself in, acknowledging his intention to fatally harm the victim.

The victim survived by millimetres when the jugular vein was missed.

The court imposed a 27-month custody and supervision order under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, balancing the serious nature of the offence against the youth's troubled background, mental health issues, and prospects for rehabilitation.

The court granted credit for pre-sentence custody, addressing the statutory requirement to take detention into account and the principles of the YCJA.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of impaired driving causing death.

While impaired by alcohol, the accused operated a motor vehicle on Fingal Line near St. Thomas with two passengers, both of whom were killed when the vehicle struck a telephone pole.

The accused fled the scene and was apprehended with the assistance of a police K-9 unit.

The sentencing court imposed a global sentence of four and one-half years imprisonment, with a ten-year driving prohibition, balancing the paramount principles of general deterrence and denunciation against mitigating factors including the accused's early guilty plea, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, and the time spent in pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions.