Engelking

The applicant father sought shared decision-making, a shared parenting schedule, child support, spousal support, and an equalization payment, challenging the validity of the parties' prenuptial agreement.

The respondent mother sought sole decision-making, primary residence, child support based on imputed income, and validation of the prenuptial agreement.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making due to findings of family violence and maintained her primary residence of the child.

The court imputed an income of $50,000 to the father due to intentional underemployment, ordered retroactive and ongoing child support, dismissed his spousal support claim, and upheld the prenuptial agreement.

The moving party previously brought a motion to change child support, which resulted in an order varying his child support obligations.

The court subsequently noted an error in the reasons for decision regarding the commencement date of the varied support.

The court issued amended reasons to correct the commencement date from June 1, 2011, to May 1, 2021, which affected the calculation of arrears.

The parties were permitted to submit new costs submissions based on the corrected outcome.

The respondent brought a motion to enforce draft Minutes of Settlement that were negotiated and finalized between counsel.

The applicant's counsel had sent the final draft to the respondent, who signed it, but the applicant subsequently refused to sign, citing a new psychological assessment of the child.

The court applied the objective test for a settlement and found that a meeting of the minds had occurred, the essential terms were agreed upon, and the agreement was not conditional.

The court granted the motion and ordered the Minutes of Settlement to be incorporated into a final order.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making authority and primary residence of the two children, with the respondent father's parenting time limited to the status quo.

The father sought parallel decision-making and a shared parenting schedule.

The court found that the parties had a high-conflict relationship and that the mother's judgment was impacted by her negative view of the father, including unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse.

Relying on the recommendations of a court-appointed assessor, the court ordered parallel decision-making, granting the father authority over health decisions and the mother authority over education and dental decisions.

The court also expanded the father's parenting time to include alternating weekends and every Wednesday overnight.

In a family law application that had been outstanding for five years, the self-represented party refused to participate in the trial without counsel, citing medical issues and stress.

The moving party brought a motion for the appointment of an amicus curiae to assist the court and ensure the trial could proceed.

Applying the principles from Morwald-Benevides, the court found that the self-represented party was hopelessly incompetent to self-represent and that the assistance of an amicus was essential to the adequate discharge of the judicial function.

The motion was granted, and Legal Aid Ontario was directed to provide a list of lawyers willing to act as amicus.

The father brought a motion to change seeking to vary previous orders regarding the primary residence of one of the children, child support, and spousal support.

The court found a material change in circumstances, determining that the child's primary residence had shifted to the father.

Consequently, child and spousal support were varied.

The court also imputed income to the father based on a three-year average after finding his divestiture of a corporation to his son was not at arm's length.

The father's claim for occupation rent was dismissed, but he was credited for his contributions to the matrimonial home's expenses pending its sale.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final consent order, seeking primary residence and sole decision-making authority over the parties' six-year-old child, who had been diagnosed with ADHD and ODD.

The respondent father opposed and sought primary residence and sole decision-making authority.

The court found that the father was better equipped to manage the child's behavioural issues and provide stability.

The court ordered primary residence to the father during the school year, with joint decision-making authority where the father has the final say.

The court also ordered the father to pay retroactive child support and the mother to pay ongoing table support based on an imputed income.

The mother brought a motion to change a final order to permit her to relocate the parties' child from Ottawa to the Greater Toronto Area, where she resides with her new husband and their children.

The father opposed the relocation and sought to maintain the existing shared parenting arrangement.

The court found that a material change in circumstances had occurred and that the relocation was in the child's best interests, noting the child's strong preference and the father's limited time spent with the child during his parenting time.

The court granted the relocation, ordered a new parenting schedule, and ordered the father to pay ongoing child support based on the table amount, while imputing an income of $40,000 to the mother for the period of shared parenting.

The applicant father brought a Hague Convention application seeking the return of his two children to the UK.

The respondent mother sought an adjournment pending the children's refugee claims in Canada.

The court bifurcated the hearing, proceeding first with the issues of habitual residence and wrongful removal.

The court found that the family had relocated to London, UK, following the end of the father's diplomatic posting in Canada, and that the children were habitually resident there.

The mother's removal of the children to Canada was found to be wrongful.

The second stage of the hearing regarding whether the children should be ordered returned was deferred until after the refugee claims are decided.

The applicant father and respondent mother sought primary residence of their six-year-old child.

The mother, a general surgeon, had relocated to Kapuskasing for employment and sought to have the child reside primarily with her.

The father sought to have the child remain in Renfrew with him.

The court analyzed the best interests of the child under the Children's Law Reform Act, finding the mother to be more attuned to the child's needs and better equipped to support his relationships.

The court ordered that the child's primary residence be with the mother in Kapuskasing, with specified parenting time for the father.

Following a family law trial where the court found the applicant mother had alienated the children from the respondent father, the parties settled all outstanding issues except costs.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $110,000, arguing he was the successful party and the applicant acted unreasonably.

The applicant sought costs of up to $96,579, arguing she was more successful as the children remained in her primary care.

The court found the applicant's behaviour was unreasonable and necessitated the trial.

The court awarded the respondent costs of $60,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

In a child protection proceeding, the child's caregivers brought a motion to remove the biological father as a party to the proceeding.

The biological father brought a cross-motion for interim parenting time or care of the child.

The court dismissed the motion to remove the biological father as a party, finding that he met the statutory definition of a parent and that removing him would be a denial of natural justice.

The court granted the biological father's motion for interim access, ordering supervised visits to foster a relationship between him and the child.

The moving party sought an extension of time and leave to appeal a family arbitration award that ordered her to pay $112,140 in retroactive spousal support.

The court granted the extension of time, finding the delay was short, explained, and caused no prejudice.

However, the court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, concluding the moving party failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator made any error of law regarding the recipient's needs, delay, or hardship to the payor.

Following a trial to recalculate an equalization payment based on the applicant's pension, the applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that the trial was entirely unnecessary, as the respondent had access to the applicant's expert report well in advance and the respondent's own expert reached essentially the same conclusion.

Furthermore, the applicant had made multiple offers to settle that were as favourable or more favourable than the final trial decision, which the respondent failed to accept.

The court exercised its discretion to award the applicant costs on a full recovery basis in the amount of $30,392.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after a nine-year marriage.

The mother sought sole decision-making authority, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making authority due to the father's coercive and controlling behaviour and the parties' inability to communicate.

The father was granted parenting time on alternating weekends and specified weekdays.

The court dismissed the father's claim to impute income to the mother, ordering child and spousal support based on the parties' actual incomes.

The father was ordered to pay spousal support for 10 years at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, an equalization payment of $213,870.11, and post-separation adjustments.

In a child protection proceeding, the father sought a temporary order returning the child to a 50/50 shared parenting regime.

The children's aid society and the mother opposed, seeking to confirm an existing order placing the child in the mother's care with supervised access for the father.

The court found that returning the child to the father's care was not in the child's best interests due to unresolved concerns regarding the father's alleged drug use, the presence of inappropriate individuals at his residence, and his behavior during access visits.

The court ordered that the child remain in the mother's care subject to society supervision.

The parties brought a motion for directions to determine whether property excluded under their cohabitation agreement could be traced into other assets and remain excluded from equalization.

The applicant argued that the agreement did not explicitly provide for tracing, while the respondent argued that the creation of a new category of excluded property implicitly included tracing rights.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation and examined the factual matrix, concluding that the mutual and objective intention of the parties was to exclude pre-marriage property and any property traced from it.

The court also ruled on the admissibility of affidavits sworn by the respondent's former counsel and a law clerk.

The children's aid society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of an infant who presented at the hospital with unexplained brain and retinal haemorrhages.

The parents claimed the injuries resulted from a fall off a couch, but medical professionals suspected non-accidental trauma.

The society apprehended the child after the parents failed to maintain a 24-hour supervision safety plan.

The court applied the unexplained injury principle and found reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of harm and could not be adequately protected by a supervision order.

The child was ordered to remain in the society's care pending trial, with access granted to the parents.

Following a successful appeal by the respondent regarding the normal retirement age used to value the applicant's pension, the matter was remitted to the Superior Court to recalculate the equalization payment.

The court adopted the applicant's expert valuation of the pension at age 60, finding the experts' preliminary values were less than $1,000 apart.

The court strongly criticized the respondent for unnecessarily prolonging the litigation and failing to comply with previous court orders.

The respondent was ordered to pay the outstanding equalization payment and costs, failing which the amounts would be transferred directly from his investment accounts or pension.

The applicant mother brought a Motion to Change a 2016 final order regarding parenting time, and the respondent father sought sole decision-making and enforcement of financial terms.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the parties' de facto shared parenting arrangement prior to the mother's 2019 mental health crisis.

The court ordered a week-on/week-off shared parenting schedule, finding it in the children's best interests despite high conflict and allegations of family violence.

Child support arrears were fixed at zero due to the shared parenting arrangement and similar incomes.

The mother was also ordered to fulfill her outstanding equalization obligations by transferring pension funds and paying cash, failing which the matrimonial home must be sold.