Heather Hansen

At a case conference in a family law proceeding, the court addressed a procedural logjam.

The applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement based on lack of disclosure and duress, while the respondent had a pending motion for summary judgment to dismiss those claims.

The court prioritized the scheduling of the summary judgment motion over the applicant's motions for further disclosure and interim support, finding that resolving the summary judgment motion was necessary to advance the case.

A costs decision following the dismissal of the father's motion to require the mother's child support claim to be dealt with solely under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act rather than the Family Law Act.

The mother, as the successful party, sought costs of $15,480.65.

The father argued for no costs or nominal costs, contending the motion raised a novel legal issue.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $12,480.65, finding the father acted unreasonably by bringing an ill-advised jurisdictional challenge that delayed the substantive child support proceedings, and by failing to accept the mother's offer to settle.

The respondent father, a resident of New York, brought a motion to dismiss an application for custody and child support brought by the applicant mother, a resident of Ontario.

The father argued that the Ontario Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter and that the mother should instead proceed under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act (ISOA).

The father also raised forum non conveniens arguments based on fairness and practicality concerns.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Ontario had jurisdiction based on the real and substantial connection test, as the child was born in and resided in Ontario with the mother.

The court further held that the father failed to discharge the burden of proving that ISOA was clearly more appropriate than proceeding under the Family Law Act.

A motion for summary judgment brought by the parents seeking termination of a Crown wardship order and placement of two children in their permanent care with society supervision.

The parents sought final orders regarding access to foster parents.

The Children's Aid Society initially sought a termination of the Crown wardship order and society supervision, but later amended its position to seek more structured access between the children and foster parents.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the summary judgment motion, arguing that conflicting evidence regarding the children's views and preferences required a trial.

The court granted the parents' summary judgment motion, finding no genuine issue for trial despite the children's expressed wishes to maintain contact with foster parents, based on uncontested material facts regarding the foster parents' inappropriate conduct and manipulation during the reunification process.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order compelling the respondent to deliver a sworn Form 13.1 Financial Statement and additional financial disclosure requested by the applicant’s expert.

The underlying application sought to set aside a separation agreement on the basis of duress and inadequate financial disclosure, while the respondent had brought a pending motion for summary judgment.

The court held that the Family Law Rules impose a mandatory obligation to provide a sworn financial statement and full and frank disclosure.

Given the complexity of the respondent’s corporate interests and the dispute over the adequacy of disclosure at the time the agreement was executed, further disclosure was necessary.

The respondent was ordered to deliver a properly executed financial statement and produce the requested corporate and financial records.

The father appealed from urgent temporary orders granting the mother temporary custody, support, and preservation of assets, arguing the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the real and substantial connection test for the Family Law Act claims and the statutory criteria under section 22 of the Children's Law Reform Act for the custody claims.

The court affirmed that jurisdiction can be assumed on a prima facie basis for urgent temporary orders while adjourning the final determination of forum conveniens.

The appellant mother sought to vary a final custody order to allow her to relocate with the parties' two children from Peterborough to Cobden.

The application judge dismissed the motion, finding no material change in circumstances since the original order, as the mother's new relationship and job opportunity were foreseeable at that time.

The application judge also found the move would not be in the children's best interests due to the disruption of their stability and their close relationship with the respondent father.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision and dismissed the appeal.

The father appealed a trial judge's decision granting sole custody of the child to the mother, and the mother cross-appealed the dismissal of her motion to vary spousal support.

The Court of Appeal allowed the father's appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by varying the existing joint custody order without first establishing a material change in circumstances as required by section 17 of the Divorce Act.

The court noted that the parties' high-conflict relationship was foreseeable and did not constitute a material change.

The mother's cross-appeal regarding support and section 7 expenses was dismissed.