Darryl A. Willer

The Supreme Court of Canada considered whether to recognize a new tort of intimate partner violence in the context of family law proceedings.

The appellant wife had suffered a 16-year pattern of physical, psychological, and financial abuse by her husband.

The majority of the Court recognized the new tort of intimate partner violence, focusing on the harm of coercive control and the deprivation of autonomy, dignity, and equality.

The Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the trial judge's damages award to fall entirely under general compensatory damages for the new tort.

The dissenting judges argued that existing torts were sufficient to compensate the wife and that recognizing a new tort was unnecessary and procedurally inappropriate in this case.

This decision concerns a motion to change child support and section 7 expenses brought by the paternal grandparents of J.G. against his mother, Kristy Ferreira.

The court found that the grandparents, having demonstrated a settled intention to treat J.G. as their child, are "parents" under the Family Law Act and thus subject to the Child Support Guidelines.

The court determined the appropriate sharing of retroactive and ongoing section 7 expenses, the child’s contribution to post-secondary costs, and the repayment schedule for retroactive support, emphasizing proportionality to household incomes and the best interests of the child.

This trial judgment addresses spousal and child support claims following a long-term marriage.

The court determined the reasonableness of the respondent husband's early retirement, declining to impute his pre-retirement income due to mental health and caregiving responsibilities for a disabled child.

The court imputed a modest part-time income to the husband and a modest investment income to the applicant wife from her equalization payment.

It rejected the applicant's claim for retroactive spousal support and the concept of "double-recovery" from the husband's pension, finding the husband to be in greater financial hardship.

Prospective spousal support was awarded at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines based on the imputed incomes.

Child support for the adult child was terminated.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment that created a novel tort of 'family violence' and awarded the respondent wife $150,000 in damages for intimate partner violence during their marriage.

The Court of Appeal held that while tort claims can be brought in family law proceedings, the trial judge erred in creating a new tort because existing torts—battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress—adequately address the pattern of physical, emotional, and financial abuse.

The Court also declined to recognize a proposed tort of 'coercive control'.

The Court upheld the $100,000 award for compensatory and aggravated damages but set aside the $50,000 punitive damages award, finding the other damages sufficient to achieve condemnation.

The mother brought a motion for interim spousal and child support, including s. 7 expenses and retroactive support.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking to impute income to the mother and suspend support payments.

The court declined to impute income to the mother, setting her income at $0 for support purposes.

The father's income was set at $949,000 for support purposes, rejecting his lower proposed income.

The court ordered the father to pay child support for one child (the daughter) and mid-range spousal support, rejecting the father's proposal to suspend payments until the matrimonial home was sold.

Retroactive support was declined, to be determined at trial.

The orders were made on a temporary, without prejudice basis due to ongoing financial disclosure.

Following cross-motions regarding child and spousal support, imputing income, and life insurance, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The court found divided success on the issue of the applicant's income for support purposes, but noted the respondent was successful in resisting the imputation of income to her and on the life insurance issue.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $5,085.

This motion concerned the consolidation and case management of three interconnected legal proceedings: a family law matter and two civil actions.

The family law proceeding involved claims for child support, equalization, and setting aside a separation agreement due to alleged undisclosed commissions received by the former spouse.

The two civil actions, brought by Halton and Solution, alleged fraudulent diversion of commissions by the former spouse and his common-law partner's company.

The court granted the motion for consolidation and case management, finding significant factual overlap, a high likelihood of inconsistent findings if tried separately, and that consolidation would lead to a more just, expeditious, and cost-effective resolution.

The parties resolved all issues except parenting time and child support for their six-year-old child.

The respondent sought equal parenting time on a 2/2/3 schedule, while the applicant opposed, citing concerns about after-school care and the respondent's support network.

The court found that both parents were capable and loving, and that transitioning to equal parenting time was in the child's best interests.

The court ordered a 2/2/3 shared parenting schedule.

The court also rejected the applicant's argument that the respondent was intentionally underemployed, finding his reduced hours accommodated his parenting time.

The applicant was ordered to pay $532 per month in child support based on the shared parenting arrangement.

This is a costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario following the dismissal of an appeal.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court reviewed the submissions and fixed costs in favour of the respondent at $22,500, inclusive of disbursements and HST, rejecting the claim for substantial indemnity costs.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judgment concerning parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and child support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed her motion to introduce fresh evidence, upholding the trial judge's parenting order which included shared parenting time and the father having final decision-making responsibility.

The court also affirmed the trial judge's calculation of the father's income for child support purposes.

However, the Court of Appeal remitted the issue of child support arrears for a six-month period (September 2019 to February 2020) to the trial judge for further consideration, as it was not addressed in the original reasons.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking orders related to the respondent father's alleged alcohol consumption while driving with their child, including the use of an alcohol monitoring device and third-party transportation.

The mother's concerns stemmed from an incident where the child reported erratic driving and the father drinking.

The father denied the allegations, asserting he consumed only one glass of wine and that erratic driving was due to another vehicle.

The court found insufficient objective evidence to substantiate the mother's claims of alcohol addiction or to justify the imposition of an alcohol monitoring device or third-party transport.

However, the father's undertaking not to consume alcohol 12 hours prior to any access exchange was formalized into a temporary court order.

The court also granted the mother leave to file an application and scheduled a case conference.

The parties settled their family law matter with comprehensive minutes of settlement and brought a 14B motion for a consent order.

The court adjourned the motion, noting that while courts rarely interfere with such agreements, it cannot act as a rubber stamp and must independently consider whether the terms are in the children's best interests.

The parties were directed to file brief affidavits explaining the terms and updated Form 35.1 affidavits.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a temporary parenting order to obtain shared custody on a 2-2-5-5 basis.

The respondent mother opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking disclosure of the father's psychiatric records, disability benefit applications, and a Voice of the Child report.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding no material change in circumstances that would compel a change to the interim parenting arrangement.

The court granted the mother's cross-motion, ordering the disclosure of the father's medical and financial records, finding that the need to determine the children's best interests outweighed any claim of privilege.

In the context of a motion to change a final support order, the parties brought cross-motions.

The mother sought additional financial disclosure regarding the father's corporate income, while the father sought a retroactive reduction in child support because the eldest child had moved in with him.

The court struck portions of the mother's affidavit as irrelevant, ordered the father to provide most of the requested financial disclosure to allow the mother's expert to assess his income, and granted the father's request to retroactively reduce his child support obligation and require the mother to pay support for the eldest child.

The parties engaged in a high-conflict family law trial primarily concerning the custody and access of their two children.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, alleging the children were alienated from the respondent father and his new wife.

The respondent father sought sole custody, alleging the mother was alienating the children from him.

The court found both parties contributed to the conflict but determined the mother's evidence lacked credibility on several substantive issues.

The court awarded custody to the father with an equal timesharing arrangement, finding he was more likely to facilitate contact with the other parent.

The court also ordered ongoing therapeutic intervention to ensure a balanced relationship between the children and both parents, and determined the parties' incomes for child support purposes.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision regarding child support, spousal support adjustment mechanisms, and reimbursement for home maintenance expenses.

The appellant sought an additional $50,000 in child support, $96,000 for her share of home maintenance expenses, and annual CPI adjustments to support.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding the child support award complied with guidelines, the home expense allocation was fair given the appellant's residence and profit-sharing in the home sale, and the salary-based adjustment mechanism for spousal support was appropriate.

The court also rejected allegations of impropriety regarding counsel's contact with the Canada Revenue Agency and upheld the costs award.

The applicants brought a motion for leave to argue a motion for summary judgment mid-trial, and the respondent brought a motion for directions seeking a trial de novo following a mistrial declared by the previous trial judge.

The court dismissed the motion for leave for summary judgment, interpreting Rule 16(1) of the Family Law Rules to mean that such motions must be brought before a trial commences.

The court also dismissed the respondent's request for a trial de novo, ordering that the trial continue from the point where the evidence concluded, in accordance with a prior Divisional Court order.

The respondent father brought a motion to change child and spousal support provisions in a separation agreement dated December 22, 1999.

The father sought to reduce his child support obligations based on declining commission income and to fix arrears at zero.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and sought to maintain the father's imputed income at $80,000 per annum, arguing the father was intentionally underemployed.

The court found that while the father's gross commission income had declined, he had been significantly underpaying child support by structuring his financial affairs to declare substantially less income than available.

The court imputed income at $80,000 per annum, ordered ongoing child support of $1,823 per month, and fixed arrears at $10,000.

The court determined costs following a family law motion in which the respondent had served an offer to settle that mirrored the order ultimately made.

The court found the applicant failed to comply with her obligation to provide financial disclosure and refused to answer whether she intended to do so when questioned during argument.

This failure affected the substantive ruling on section 7 expenses and was a significant factor in the costs determination.

In light of the offer to settle and the applicant’s unwarranted refusal to disclose financial information, the court awarded the respondent full indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed at $2,744.45 inclusive of disbursements and HST and made payable forthwith.

The appellant wife appealed a trial judgment finding that the respondent husband had a fifty percent beneficial interest by way of resulting trust in a property, and failing to order retroactive child support for a specific period.

The respondent cross-appealed the trial judge's decision to award no costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no prejudice in the failure to plead resulting trust and no error in the trial judge's appreciation of the evidence regarding the property or child support.

The cross-appeal was also dismissed, as the offers to settle would not have affected the costs outcome.