D. R. Aston

The mother brought a motion to enforce prior orders for parenting time and family reconciliation therapy, alleging the father alienated their 17-year-old daughter.

The daughter, represented by the Office of the Children's Lawyer, adamantly refused to participate in therapy or see her mother.

The court dismissed the mother's motion to enforce the orders, finding it would be futile and counterproductive given the child's age and entrenched views.

However, finding the father partly responsible for the therapy's failure, the court ordered him to reimburse the mother for half the therapy costs as a sanction for non-compliance.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment regarding three commercial loans to the defendants.

The defendants argued that the loan restructuring agreement was unauthorized, signed under duress, and that potential insurance coverage precluded judgment.

The court rejected these defences, finding that the corporate defendant's director had ostensible authority, there was no illegitimate pressure amounting to duress, and no evidence of relevant insurance existed.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the full amount of the debts.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing credibility.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge improperly treated the case as a credibility contest, accepted the complainant's evidence without adequate explanation, and rejected the appellant's exculpatory evidence without considering whether it raised a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and a new trial was ordered due to the trial judge's failure to apply the principles from R. v. W.(D.).

The mother, father, and the maternal aunt and uncle (the McCormicks) brought competing motions regarding the residence of the three children.

The father, who shared joint custody with the McCormicks, sought permission to relocate with the children from London to Lindsay for employment.

The mother and the McCormicks opposed the move and sought to have the children placed in their care.

The court granted the father's motion to relocate, finding it in the children's best interests as it allowed the father to secure employment and remain the primary caregiver, subject to modifications in transportation and access schedules.

The motions by the mother and the McCormicks were dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion to stay a temporary order granting the respondent father supervised access to their two children, pending her motion for leave to appeal.

The mother objected to the paternal grandmother acting as the access supervisor.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the mother failed to establish irreparable harm to the children or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The court also found that fresh evidence regarding transitional difficulties during access did not justify staying or varying the order.

In a family law proceeding, both parties brought motions for further production and disclosure.

The respondent wife sought extensive disclosure and valuation of the applicant husband's family's businesses and a family trust, as well as oral discovery of non-parties.

The court dismissed the requests for corporate and trust valuations for equalization purposes, finding the husband had no ownership interest.

Applying the proportionality principle, the court limited disclosure for income determination purposes to records of personal expenses paid by the business or the husband's parents, and quashed the summonses to non-parties.

The wife was also ordered to produce certain bank statements and records of sold jewelry.

In a family law proceeding, both parties brought motions for further production and disclosure.

The respondent wife sought extensive corporate and trust records, as well as the examination of non-parties, to value the husband's family business and determine his income for support purposes.

The court dismissed the request for corporate valuation disclosure, finding the husband had no ownership interest in the business and his interest in a family trust was nil.

The court partially granted disclosure regarding the husband's income, ordering production of credit card statements and particulars of personal expenses paid by the company or his father.

The request to examine non-parties was dismissed as disproportionate, and the summonses were quashed.

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.

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 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.

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 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.