287 total
Appeal dismissed; motion judge had discretion to prioritize retroactive spousal support over a law firm's charging order.
The appellant law firm obtained a charging order for its legal fees against funds held in court that were generated from litigation in which it represented the respondent husband.
In the underlying matrimonial proceedings, the motion judge dismissed the law firm's motion for payment out of the funds, instead ordering the funds paid to the respondent wife as retroactive spousal support.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the law firm's appeal, holding that the motion judge was entitled to treat the funds as available for spousal support and had the discretion to refuse to give the charging order priority over spousal support.
No costs awarded for appeal or Divisional Court proceedings due to divided success and income disparity.
In a costs endorsement following an appeal, the Court of Appeal noted that success in the proceedings was divided.
The appellant succeeded on his appeal to the Court of Appeal, but the Divisional Court had correctly held it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Considering the divided success and the disparity in income between the parties, the Court ordered no costs for the proceedings in either court.
The lower court's costs order was set aside and reserved to the judge hearing the application to vary.
Retroactive child support increases require evidence of need and cannot be based solely on undisclosed income increases.
The appellant father appealed an interim order that retroactively increased his child support obligations based on his substantially increased income.
The motions judge had recalculated the support under the Federal Child Support Guidelines without finding a material change in circumstances or a pressing need for the children.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Guidelines do not provide an inherent discretion to retroactively recalculate support based solely on an undisclosed increase in income.
A retroactive increase requires a finding of a change in circumstances, ability to pay, and evidence of the children's need during the relevant period.
Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction over appeal of final child support order exceeding $25,000; transferred to ONCA.
The appellant appealed an order for retroactive child support in the amount of $42,917.88 to the Divisional Court, characterizing it as an interlocutory order.
The Divisional Court raised the issue of its own jurisdiction and determined that the order was final, as it finally determined the issue of retroactivity for the years 1998 to 2001.
Because the order was final and for a single payment of more than $25,000, the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction under section 19 of the Courts of Justice Act.
The appeal was adjourned and transferred to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
Stock option profits constitute income and a material change in circumstances justifying retroactive support variation.
The parties signed Minutes of Settlement in 1996 providing for child and spousal support, which could be varied upon a material change in circumstances.
Shortly after signing, the appellant husband cashed in significant stock options and received a substantial salary increase, but failed to disclose this to the respondent wife.
The trial judge found these events constituted a material change in circumstances, implied a duty to disclose, and awarded retroactive child and spousal support.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on the characterization of the stock options as income, the material change in circumstances, and the implied duty to disclose.
However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the trial judge erred in awarding the Federal Child Support Guidelines table amount for the period prior to the Guidelines coming into force in May 1997.
Appeal allowed; entire family law file sealed to protect child from risk of kidnapping.
The appellant mother appealed an order that denied her request to seal the entire family law court file and instead only expunged certain information.
The mother, who comes from a wealthy family, argued that the entire file needed to be sealed to protect the child from the risk of kidnapping.
The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the best interests of the child required an exception to the open court principle under s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.
The appeal was allowed and the entire file was ordered sealed.
Appeal largely dismissed, but ten percent premium on costs set aside as unjustified in family law.
The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment regarding the valuation date for his business, the quantification of the equalization payment, prejudgment interest, and a ten percent premium on legal costs awarded to the respondent wife.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on the valuation date, equalization payment, and prejudgment interest, finding no palpable and overriding error.
However, the Court set aside the ten percent premium on costs, noting no authority for such an order in a family law context where substantial costs had already been awarded.
A cross-appeal regarding child support was allowed on consent.
