David Tobin

In a family law trial, the applicant sought equalization of net family property and damages for the tort of intimate partner violence.

The court resolved property valuation disputes, including valuing the respondent's extensive gun collection and excluding a property held in resulting trust.

Applying the newly recognized tort of intimate partner violence, the court found the respondent engaged in a decades-long pattern of coercive control, physical abuse, and psychological manipulation.

The court awarded the applicant $400,000 in compensatory damages, $25,000 in punitive damages, and issued a permanent restraining order.

In a family law motion arising from a final child support order made after an uncontested trial, the responding party sought to stay the payor's Motion to Change because of substantial arrears and ongoing non-compliance.

The court declined to impose a stay on the issues relating to ongoing child support, holding that there was a credible basis for a post-order material change in the children's living arrangements and that fairness required a determination on the merits.

The court also permitted a rule 25(19)(a) fraud-based challenge to be heard within the Motion to Change proceeding, adopting a flexible approach under the Family Law Rules.

Although the moving party did not fit neatly within the enumerated grounds for security for costs, the court ordered proportionate security of $30,000 in light of the procedural history, unpaid financial obligations, and continuing litigation risk.

In a non-Hague international child removal dispute, the court held that Ontario lacked jurisdiction under s. 22 of the Children’s Law Reform Act to determine parenting on the merits because the children were habitually resident in Dubai when they were removed to Ontario.

The court also found that the statutory conditions in s. 22(1)(b) were not all satisfied, and that the evidence did not establish serious harm under s. 23 or justify parens patriae intervention under s. 69.

Although the removal to Ontario without notice or consent was found to be wrongful, the court emphasized that self-help relocation cannot create a new habitual residence or jurisdictional foothold.

Under s. 40, the court ordered an interim cross-border parenting regime and directed the parties to advance parenting claims in the courts of England and Wales.

The appellant appealed a family court order dismissing her application for $745,286 in retroactive spousal support for the period of 2015 to 2022.

The parties separated in 2006 and had an informal financial arrangement until 2015.

The trial judge found the appellant's financial evidence unreliable and concluded she failed to establish an ongoing entitlement to compensatory support after 2015.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the trial judge's credibility assessments and confirming that the burden of proving entitlement on an initial application rests with the claimant, regardless of delay.

This decision resolves a school placement dispute between separated parents for the 2025/2026 academic year.

The father sought to have the children attend schools in his catchment area, while the mother sought different placements and temporary sole decision-making over education.

The court considered the best interests of each child, their school history, and the stability of their placements.

The court ordered that E. remain at Albert Campbell C.I., I. apply to attend Albert Campbell C.I. (with a fallback to West Hill C.I. if not accepted), and M. attend Grey Owl Junior Public School.

The mother was ordered to pay the father $6,000 in costs.

The applicant mother sought a divorce, retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, an equalization payment, and a vesting order for the matrimonial home.

The respondent father's answer regarding financial issues had been struck due to his persistent failure to provide financial disclosure.

Proceeding by way of an uncontested trial, the court drew an adverse inference against the father and imputed his income at $400,000 per year.

The court ordered the father to pay $448,400 in retroactive child support, $479,367 in retroactive spousal support, a $66,417 lump sum for prospective spousal support, and an equalization payment of $503,411.86.

To satisfy the spousal support and equalization obligations, the court granted a vesting order transferring the father's sole title in the matrimonial home to the mother absolutely.

The court issued supplementary reasons in a family law application, correcting and clarifying its earlier order.

The decision addresses mistakes and omissions in the original reasons, including the division of property, entitlement to compensation for beneficial interests, limitation periods for trust claims, and the effect of post-separation mortgage refinancing.

The court orders compensation for the applicant’s share of the Bashundhara plot, finds the claim for the Australian properties limitations-barred, and clarifies the disbursement of proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent father sought an order for the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) to conduct a parenting assessment under s. 112 of the Courts of Justice Act, arguing it was necessary due to differing views on parenting and the child's best interests, and proposing a "focused" report.

The applicant mother opposed, citing potential delays to the expedited new trial (ordered by the Court of Appeal after overturning the initial trial decision on relocation) and arguing that an OCL report would not materially assist the court on the relocation issue.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding that an OCL report would not add value, especially given the child's young age (5 years), the absence of third-party involvement or clinical issues, and the imperative to avoid further trial delays as mandated by the Court of Appeal.

The court emphasized that the OCL cannot opine on relocation, which is solely the court's purview.

The applicant husband and respondent wife separated after a 17-year marriage.

The applicant brought a family law application to resolve complex financial issues, including the equalization of properties and businesses in Canada, Bangladesh, and Australia.

The court first held that an unsigned separation agreement was unenforceable under s. 55(1) of the Family Law Act.

The court determined the beneficial ownership and valuation of various assets, including the matrimonial home, foreign properties, and business debts, ultimately finding that both parties had negative net family properties, resulting in no equalization payment.

The court imputed the applicant's income at $130,000 and ordered him to pay ongoing and retroactive child support.

Furthermore, the court found the applicant liable for the torts of battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress due to a prolonged pattern of intimate partner violence, awarding the respondent $175,000 in compensatory and aggravated damages, plus $25,000 in punitive damages.

The mother appealed an order denying her permission to relocate her three-year-old daughter from Toronto to Ennis, Ireland.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made material errors, seriously misapprehended evidence, and committed legal errors in his "best interests of the child" analysis under the Divorce Act.

Specifically, the trial judge erred in assessing family violence allegations, making unfounded assumptions about the mother's family's attitude towards the child's biracial heritage, and concluding that the mother manipulated the court system.

The trial judge also erred by re-characterizing the relocation case as a "support case" and misapplying the burden of proof.

The appeal was allowed, the trial decision set aside, and a new trial ordered on an expedited basis, with costs awarded to the mother.

This decision concerns the costs award following a trial where the applicant's request to relocate the child from Toronto to Ireland was dismissed.

The court had previously ordered compensatory spousal support for the applicant to facilitate her Canadian optometry registration.

The respondent, successful on the main relocation issue, sought significant costs.

The court awarded the respondent $70,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, but deferred payment until the applicant achieves self-sufficiency, specifically by December 31, 2026, or three months after obtaining full-time employment as an Ontario Doctor of Optometry.

The court considered the applicant's strategic allegations of abuse and the need to avoid frustrating the primary judgment's purpose.

The court issued supplementary reasons for judgment regarding support calculations and parenting time, following an earlier trial decision.

The key issues were the inclusion of the respondent's severance income for spousal support, imputation of income to the applicant, and the appropriate Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) range.

The court ruled that the respondent's severance income would not be included for spousal support calculations, declined to impute income to the applicant, and confirmed the spousal support award at the middle of the SSAG range, with the respondent also responsible for 50% of the applicant's future educational expenses.

The court issued supplementary reasons for judgment regarding the parenting schedule following a trial.

The Respondent's motion to reopen the trial to submit fresh evidence was denied, as the court found discussions between counsel should be a safe space and post-trial conduct should not lead to a never-ending trial.

The Applicant sought a phased-in, unequal parenting schedule and a stay of any immediate substantial change pending her appeal of the relocation decision.

The court rejected the Applicant's arguments, finding her reliance on the "status quo" disingenuous and her appeal not a basis to tailor the trial judge's remedy.

The court ordered an accelerated transition to the Respondent's proposed "2-2-3" equal parenting schedule, effective June 4, 2023, and denied the stay request.

The applicant mother sought to relocate with the parties' three-year-old daughter to Ireland, arguing she needed to return to her home country to practice optometry and escape the respondent father's alleged coercive control.

The father opposed the relocation.

The court dismissed the relocation application, finding the mother's allegations of abuse lacked credibility and her economic rationale was flawed, as she could upgrade her degree in Canada.

Instead of permitting relocation, the court ordered the father to pay compensatory spousal support to fund the mother's professional requalification in Ontario, and ordered joint decision-making for the child.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim shared parenting time for their 17-month-old child.

The respondent mother opposed overnights, citing family violence allegations, the child's breastfeeding, and her religious beliefs.

The court granted the father a graduated schedule leading to shared parenting, finding that the family violence allegations were insufficient to deny overnights, breastfeeding was not a bar to the father having overnight parenting time, and religious freedom must align with the child's best interests.

The decision emphasized the importance of the child maintaining a strong bond with both parents and restoring the pre-separation status quo.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking a final custody order for the child to her father, S.J., under section 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The mother, A.P., opposed the motion, seeking the child's return to her care or more expansive unsupervised parenting time, arguing that genuine issues required a trial.

The father and the child's counsel (OCL) consented to the CCAS's proposed order.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, and ordered the child to remain in the father's primary care with sole decision-making authority, and specified supervised parenting time for the mother.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change child support, seeking a retroactive adjustment due to the respondent father's misrepresentation and non-disclosure of his income.

The original consent order for child support was based on an imputed income of $50,000, but the respondent's actual income was significantly higher in subsequent years.

The court found that a "non-reviewable" clause in the prior order did not preclude variation under the Divorce Act.

Applying Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence (D.B.S., Michel, Colucci), the court determined that the respondent's blameworthy conduct in failing to disclose his true income justified a retroactive increase in child support to April 2019.

The court imputed an income of $126,000 to the respondent for 2022 and on a go-forward basis due to his continued evasiveness and lack of proper disclosure.

The applicant also withdrew a mobility claim, for which the respondent was awarded partial costs.

The Applicant brought a motion to vary a consent parenting order, seeking to impose fully supervised parenting time for the Respondent due to concerns about his mental health and alleged non-compliance with treatment recommendations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Applicant failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances or compelling evidence that the child's welfare was at risk.

The court characterized the Applicant's concerns as *quia timet* and noted that subjective fears, while understandable, do not meet the legal test for varying an interim order.

The Applicant mother brought a motion to temporarily implement parenting time recommendations from an Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) report, or alternatively, to convert the existing 2-2-3 parenting schedule to a week-about shared arrangement.

The Respondent father opposed, alleging abuse and attempting to discredit the OCL report, which found him responsible for the child's refusal to see the mother.

The court granted the mother temporary sole decision-making authority to arrange therapy for the child and varied the parenting time to a week-about schedule to reduce exchanges, declining the OCL's recommended 30-day "detox" period due to the lack of therapy in place.

The matter was adjourned for an urgent Trial Scheduling Conference.

The Applicant was awarded costs due to the Respondent's unreasonable litigation conduct, including surreptitious recording.

The applicant children's aid society brought a temporary care and custody motion regarding an 8-year-old child following allegations of sexual abuse by the respondent father.

The father argued the court lost jurisdiction because the society effectively removed the child by suspending his parenting time but failed to bring the matter to court within five days as required by the CYFSA.

The court found that while the society's actions amounted to a removal, it did not complete the process of taking the child to a 'place of safety', resulting in an irregularity rather than a loss of jurisdiction.

The court ordered the child to remain in the temporary care of the mother, with the father's parenting time to be supervised, finding reasonable grounds to believe the child would be at risk of harm if returned to a shared parenting schedule.