David R. Aston

The applicant mother sought to enforce a 1992 child support claim and calculate arrears for two children, now adults.

The respondent father had been a cab driver for many years and had periods of unemployment and underemployment.

The court analyzed the children's eligibility for support over a 23-year period, finding they were only eligible during months they were actually enrolled in full-time education due to sporadic attendance and significant employment income.

The court imputed the father's income at $34,000 for his cab driving years and credited him for direct payments made.

The applicant's claim for $53,891 in arrears was reduced to $1,072.

Property owners challenged a municipal heritage designation by-law enacted under the Ontario Heritage Act designating their commercial property and “all original interior features.” They argued the by-law was void due to improper notice and alternatively sought severance of certain interior items from the designation.

The court held that although notice by mail contained a minor postal code error and did not strictly comply with the statutory notice provision, the owners had actual notice of the municipality’s intention to designate the property.

The defect rendered the by-law potentially voidable but not void ab initio, and the one‑year limitation period for quashing municipal by-laws barred the application.

The court further held that the disputed clock, cabinets, counters, showcases, and mirrors were fixtures forming part of the real property and could lawfully be included in the heritage designation.

A temporary care and custody hearing under s. 51 of the Child and Family Services Act considered the placement of three children following their apprehension from the mother.

The Society maintained a neutral position between the father and the maternal grandmother as potential caregivers for the two younger children, while the eldest child had been residing with the grandmother.

The court evaluated the best interests of the children, including sibling relationships, stability, caregiving capacity, and the least disruptive placement.

It found the father capable of safely caring for the two younger children and concluded that the grandmother’s responsibility for the eldest child’s significant needs made placement of all three children with her less appropriate.

Temporary care and custody of the two younger children was granted to the father, while the eldest child remained with the grandmother, all subject to Society supervision and access arrangements.

The father brought a motion seeking the immediate return of the parties’ child to Ontario and temporary custody after the mother relocated to British Columbia.

An earlier ex parte interim‑interim order had required the mother to return the child to Ontario based on an interpretation of a separation agreement restricting travel.

The court found that the motion judge had misread the relevant provision of the separation agreement, which actually restricted the father’s travel rights and did not prohibit the mother from relocating.

Considering the new evidence and the mistaken interpretation underlying the earlier order, the court set aside the ex parte interim‑interim order.

The child remained on an extended access visit with the father while the mother continued as the custodial parent under the separation agreement pending further court orders.

The applicant brought a motion to change long‑standing child and spousal support obligations arising from a 1997 divorce judgment.

The applicant sought termination of spousal support and reduction of child support for an adult dependent child with disabilities who continued to reside with the respondent.

The court held that the child remained a “child of the marriage” and applied s. 3(2)(b) of the Child Support Guidelines, considering government disability benefits and program funding in assessing the child’s needs.

The court reduced the monthly child support obligation to reflect the child’s ODSP income and other subsidies.

The request to terminate or vary spousal support was dismissed because no material change justified altering the existing order.

Following a family law trial concerning equalization of net family property and spousal support, the court determined costs.

The applicant was found to be the more successful party on both the property equalization issues and the spousal support issues, including the valuation date dispute and the limitation of the respondent’s support claim.

The court also considered the respondent’s unreasonable litigation conduct and delay in providing financial disclosure.

While the applicant sought full indemnity costs exceeding $131,000, the court applied proportionality and the respondent’s financial circumstances in assessing a reasonable award.

Costs were fixed at $60,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, with funds held in court applied toward the payment.

The parties separated after a 21-year relationship.

The applicant father, who moved to Alberta for lucrative employment in the oil industry, sought joint custody of their three children.

The respondent mother, who had been a full-time homemaker for 15 years, sought child and spousal support.

The court granted joint custody, finding the father to be a responsible parent.

The court ordered the father to pay table child support based on an income of $112,000 and awarded the mother indefinite spousal support of $450 per month, imputing an income of $30,000 to her to encourage self-sufficiency.

The father was also ordered to pay $7,504 in retroactive support.

The appellant, CNH, appealed a decision of the Agricultural, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

During an attendance before the Divisional Court, the parties consented to refer the matter back to the Tribunal but could not agree on costs.

Following the Tribunal's subsequent decision, both parties sought costs for the earlier court attendance.

The court found neither party was entitled to the excessive costs sought and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the attendance fixed at $2,500.

The applicant wife and respondent husband disputed the valuation date for equalization and the husband's entitlement to spousal support.

The court found the marriage had broken down by May 2008, as the parties had ceased intimate relations, the husband was chronically unemployed, and the wife paid all expenses.

The court valued the wife's pension based on a projected retirement at age 65.

The court denied the husband's claim for indefinite spousal support, finding the wife had already fulfilled her obligations by supporting him for years post-separation.

The court terminated spousal support retroactively to March 2014 and credited the wife for overpayments made under an interim order against the equalization payment owed to the husband.

The applicant father brought a motion to change to terminate child support for three adult children.

The respondent mother sought a retroactive increase in child support back to 1997.

The court determined the dates on which each child ceased to be a dependent under the Divorce Act, terminating support for the children in 2012 and 2014.

The court ordered a retroactive recalculation of child support back to May 2009 based on the father's income and the Child Support Guidelines, resulting in arrears of $18,211.36 payable by the father.

The parties brought urgent motions regarding parenting time of their two-year-old child prior to a case conference.

The mother had unilaterally terminated the 3/4/4/3 shared parenting arrangement due to safety concerns regarding the father's new residence, including broken glass and drug paraphernalia.

The court found the parenting time issue urgent, noted the father's historical active engagement, and reinstated his parenting time on a modified schedule, conditional on him filing an updated Form 35.1 affidavit.

No costs were awarded as the mother's concerns were reasonable.

The respondent father added his father-in-law as a party to the family law proceeding, alleging the father-in-law exerted duress regarding a separation agreement and consent to the mother's relocation with the children.

The father-in-law brought a motion to be removed as a party.

The court granted the motion, finding that the father-in-law was merely a witness and that no foundational cause of action was pleaded against him, as duress is not a free-standing tort.

The mother brought a motion to change a custody and access order after the father unilaterally moved to a rural property, significantly increasing the child's travel time to school and extracurricular activities.

The court found a material change in circumstances.

While both parents were capable, the court determined it was in the child's best interests to reside primarily with the mother in London during the school week to reduce travel time and maintain community ties, with the father having primary care during the summer.

On the respondent's attempt to pursue equalization of net family property after his earlier pleading had been struck and that claim dismissed for repeated non-compliance with financial disclosure orders, the court held the renewed claim was barred as an abuse of process.

The court emphasized that dismissal orders must be respected unless successfully challenged and that a party cannot simply commence fresh proceedings to relitigate the same financial claim.

The moving party properly conceded there was no procedural impediment to the spousal support claim because it had not been advanced in the original pleading.

The equalization claim, any related set-off claim, and any equitable relief founded on equalization were summarily dismissed.

In a personal injury action, the defendants sought further examination for discovery of the plaintiff and the plaintiffs sought immediate particulars of surveillance evidence.

The court held that the moving parties were entitled to continue the plaintiff's discovery, particularly to explore the effect of a subsequent motor vehicle accident and responsive productions.

Applying the recent appellate guidance on surveillance disclosure, the court required a sworn supplementary affidavit of documents disclosing the existence of the surveillance before the continued discovery, but held that the particulars of the surveillance need only be delivered forthwith after the plaintiff's discovery was completed.

Costs were fixed in favour of the moving parties.

Following a successful appeal that certified a class action against the Toronto Police Services Board, the court determined the costs of the original certification motion.

The appellant sought over $749,000, while the respondent argued for costs thrown away or no costs due to the appellant significantly reformulating her claim on appeal.

The Divisional Court held that while the appellant was entitled to costs because the case involved matters of public interest, the amount must be reduced to reflect the time spent on claims against defendants that were later abandoned.

The court fixed the costs of the original certification motion at $125,728.03 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The Toronto District School Board appealed a decision dismissing its appeal from the City of Toronto's Chief Building Official.

The CBO had determined that a zoning by-law exemption for school board lands used 'only for teaching or instructional purposes' did not permit a private company to operate a commercial sports facility on school property.

The Divisional Court found that while the application judge erred in interpreting the by-law to restrict the 'user' rather than the 'use', the CBO's conclusion was reasonable.

The proposed private recreational use was not 'only' for teaching or instructional purposes, nor was it an 'accessory use' naturally and normally incidental to school use.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff moved to restore an action to the trial list after it had been struck due to outstanding undertakings and incomplete trial readiness requirements.

The court applied the test requiring a reasonable explanation for delay and absence of non-compensable prejudice to the defendant.

Although some delay involved difficulties obtaining documents and funding an expert report, the court found the delay largely attributable to the plaintiff and not reasonably explained.

The court also accepted that the long passage of time since the underlying events raised concerns about fading witness recollection.

The motion to restore the action to the trial list was dismissed and costs were awarded to the defendant.

The applicant, East Durham Wind, Inc., sought judicial review of two municipal by-laws enacted by the Municipality of West Grey that prevented the construction of a provincially approved wind energy project.

The applicant held a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) but required municipal entrance and oversize haulage permits.

The Divisional Court found that the municipal by-laws frustrated the purpose of the REA, which was to facilitate renewable energy projects under the Green Energy Act.

The court declared the by-laws inoperative to the extent of the conflict and ordered the municipality to reconsider the permit applications.

The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of a motion to certify a class action against the Toronto Police Services Board arising from mass detentions during the 2010 G20 summit.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the requirements for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met.

The court certified two separate class actions: one for five location-based subclasses who were allegedly arbitrarily detained by police cordons, and another for individuals held at a specially created detention centre.