Heather Hansen

The respondent brought a motion for interim child and spousal support following the breakdown of a 15-year marriage.

The parties enjoyed an exceptionally high standard of living, with family wealth including a $200 million business fund and multiple luxury properties.

The applicant argued the motion was premature due to an impending $90 million equalization payment and contested the respondent's proposed budget as inflated.

The court found the motion was not premature and the respondent was entitled to support.

Given the applicant's income far exceeded the $350,000 ceiling, the court departed from a strict application of the guidelines, awarding $200,000 per month in interim spousal support and $75,000 per month in interim child support, plus $27,000 monthly for nannies.

Claims for retroactive support were deferred to trial.

The respondent brought a motion for interim child and spousal support.

The parties were separated but continued to reside in the matrimonial home with their children.

The applicant was paying all carrying costs for the home, joint debts, and children's expenses.

The court dismissed the motion as premature, finding that interim support is generally not payable when the payor spouse covers all carrying costs while the parties reside together under the same roof.

The respondent was granted liberty to renew the motion once the matrimonial home is sold.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order transferring a matter from the Family Law Team to the Civil Law Team in Toronto.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was good reason to doubt the motion judge's finding on jurisdiction, the decision to have the matter addressed by the Civil Law Team was an exercise of administrative discretion that did not raise a matter of such importance to warrant leave to appeal.

This appeal concerns the determination of spousal support in a 14-year marriage between two high-income earners.

The appellant, a financial advisor earning over $2 million annually, challenged the trial judge's order requiring him to pay $20,000 monthly spousal support for 9.5 years to the respondent, a respirologist earning an imputed income of $550,000 annually.

The appellant argued the respondent had no entitlement to spousal support due to her high income and lack of economic disadvantage.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding the respondent had both compensatory and non-compensatory entitlements to spousal support based on her role in supporting the appellant's career advancement during the marriage, despite her own professional income.

The respondent sought exclusive possession of the matrimonial home located in Toronto and a time-sharing arrangement for a cottage property in McKellar, Ontario.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought alternative relief.

The court granted the respondent exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, finding that the applicant's conduct—including unauthorized access to privileged documents, placement of tracking devices, and attempts to access email accounts—constituted psychological abuse rendering continued cohabitation impractical.

The court declined to determine whether the cottage property constituted a matrimonial home, as this required findings of credibility better suited to trial.

Instead, the court granted the respondent limited use of the cottage for two one-week periods annually, while granting the applicant exclusive use of both the main cottage and secondary rental cottage.

This appeal concerns a family law dispute involving claims for unjust enrichment arising from a joint family venture and spousal support.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the trial judge’s award of $3,000,000 in damages for unjust enrichment, $365,624 in lump sum spousal support, and $475,000 in costs to the respondent, Katherine Ann Mullin.

The court found that the trial judge properly applied the law regarding unjust enrichment and joint family ventures, and that the evidence supported the findings.

The appeal was dismissed.

This decision concerns an appeal by James Brent Maxwell from an arbitration award regarding child support, retroactive child support, and costs, following a lengthy family law dispute with Lynne La Fontaine.

The court reviews the arbitrator’s findings on income imputation, retroactive support, and the application of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, particularly regarding support for adult children attending post-secondary education away from home.

The court finds that while the arbitrator made a reviewable error by failing to conduct a proper analysis under s. 3(2)(b) of the Guidelines for adult children living away from home, most other findings were within her discretion.

The appeal is allowed in part, with directions for further submissions on quantification if the parties cannot resolve the issue.

The appellant mother appealed an interim order granting the respondent father equal parenting time with their two-year-old child.

The mother argued the motion judge erred by ignoring the status quo, minimizing allegations of family violence, and failing to adequately consider the child's medical conditions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge made no palpable and overriding errors in assessing the child's best interests under the Divorce Act.

The court held that the motion judge properly considered the father's willingness to care for the child, the unlikelihood of family violence recurring post-separation, and the maximum contact principle.

This decision concerns an application by Dr. Kelly Diane Riedel regarding the validity and administration of the Dmyant Sangha Family Trust and the Sangha Property Trust.

Dr. Riedel alleges that the trusts are shams, created to defeat her family law entitlements, and seeks various forms of relief including the production of legal records and the conversion of the application to an action.

The court addresses the legal standards for sham trusts, the relevance of disputed facts, and the entitlement to privileged documents.

The application to convert to an action is dismissed, and the court sets out a process for determining threshold questions regarding the validity of the trusts.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of the lower court.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, ordered the appeal to be expedited, and reserved the issue of costs to the panel deciding the appeal.

The court issued a costs endorsement declining to order personal costs against the respondent's former counsel for non-compliance with the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction for Family Proceedings, specifically regarding the double-spacing requirement in a factum.

The judge found that existing rules (Family Law Rules R. 24(9) and Rules of Civil Procedure R. 57.07(1)) were insufficient to address such breaches, as they require a finding of costs run up without reasonable cause or wasted, which was not the harm in this case.

While acknowledging the non-compliance undermined court authority and interfered with the administration of justice, it was not deemed "serious" enough to warrant personal costs under the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The judge highlighted a persistent problem without sufficient remedial authority and recommended rule amendments to allow courts to hold lawyers accountable for obvious breaches of practice directions.

The Respondent father sought unsupervised and increased parenting time, including overnights, and equal parenting time after Labour Day.

The Applicant mother opposed this, requesting the continuation of supervised parenting time and bringing a cross-motion for primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility.

The court, applying the best interests of the child test, granted the father unsupervised daytime parenting time and supervised overnight parenting time, acknowledging his efforts to address past issues while noting serious concerns regarding his criminal history and lack of accountability.

The Applicant's cross-motion for sole decision-making and primary residence was dismissed as premature.

The respondent, Paul Wynn, brought a motion to bifurcate two key issues in a complex family law proceeding: the enforceability of a marriage contract and the determination of Paul's beneficial interest in significant family properties and businesses, including bare trust claims.

The added respondents supported the bifurcation of the property issue.

The applicant, Leslie Wynn, opposed the motion, seeking a single trial for all issues.

The court granted the motion, ordering the severance of issues into three separate trials or segments.

The court found that bifurcation was convenient and in the interests of justice due to the case's complexity, the potential for significant cost and time savings by avoiding extensive valuations, and the increased prospects for early settlement, concluding that there would be no undue prejudice to the applicant.

In a family law motion between separated spouses, the moving party sought relief after the other spouse admitted surreptitiously copying private emails, documents, and text messages from his computer and sharing some of that material with her legal team and accountant.

The court held that a forensic audit was necessary before admissibility and privilege issues could be properly determined, and applied the framework governing unauthorized access to privileged information.

An independent third-party solicitor, Heuristica Discovery Counsel LLP, was appointed to conduct an expanded eDiscovery review, with the spouse who copied the material ordered to pay the upfront costs subject to reapportionment at trial.

The court also granted a temporary restraining order preventing further dissemination of the surreptitiously obtained information and required disclosure of all recipients.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

However, because the motion judge delayed releasing reasons for three and a half months, which justified bringing the motion, the court made no order as to costs.

The court also noted that the best interests of the child would be served by proceeding to trial as quickly as possible.

The appellant appealed an order directing the sale of a vacant property solely owned by the respondent, where the parties had previously cohabited.

The appellant argued the sale should be delayed until the validity of their cohabitation agreement, which contained a purchase option, was determined at trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the respondent should not be forced to pay significant monthly maintenance for an unused property, especially since the sale proceeds would be held in trust pending final resolution.

Following a trial on property and spousal support where the applicant was substantially successful, the applicant sought costs of $848,408.89.

The court found that the respondent acted in bad faith by failing to make proper disclosure, which triggered full recovery costs under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court fixed the costs payable by the respondent to the applicant at $475,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

The Applicant sought monetary damages for unjust enrichment based on a joint family venture, an order for no equalization payment, and a lump sum spousal support payment.

The Respondent opposed these claims.

The court found that the Applicant had established unjust enrichment within a joint family venture due to her contributions to the Respondent's business (GS Medical) and household, and her corresponding deprivation (giving up her career, underpaid/unpaid labor).

The court also found the Applicant entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory bases, noting the luxurious lifestyle during cohabitation and the Applicant's economic disadvantage.

Due to the Respondent's lack of financial disclosure, adverse inferences were drawn regarding the value of his business.

The court awarded the Applicant $3,000,000 for unjust enrichment and $365,624.00 net of tax for lump sum spousal support, plus prejudgment interest.

The divorce application was granted.

This endorsement addresses the admissibility of extensive hearsay evidence, particularly statements attributed to children, presented via affidavit in a family law trial.

The court reiterated that while evidentiary rules may be flexible for children's best interests, the hearsay rule is not relaxed for trial affidavits.

It emphasized the "necessity and reliability" test for admitting children's hearsay, finding that the impugned statements lacked sufficient procedural and substantive reliability, especially given the children's vulnerabilities and the absence of independent corroboration.

The court largely disallowed the admission of the contested hearsay evidence.

The applicant sought partial summary judgment to dismiss the respondent's claim to set aside a cohabitation agreement.

The respondent argued the agreement should be set aside due to unconscionability, undue influence, duress, and inadequate financial disclosure, stemming from alleged coercive control during their 18-year common law relationship.

The court found that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial, particularly concerning the credibility of the parties and the nature of their relationship, which could not be resolved on a paper record.

The applicant's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.