Heng (Pandora) Du

The appellant challenged an order extending time for a late equalization claim and permitting a property ownership claim to continue.

The court held that the motion judge erred in treating repeated non-compliance with child support and disclosure orders as irrelevant when granting discretionary relief under the Family Law Act and Family Law Rules.

The court also held that the plain wording of the parties' divorce agreement barred claims to pre-marital property and that no proper expert evidence justified reading in a geographic limitation.

The extension order was set aside, the equalization claim was statute barred, and the ownership claim was dismissed.

The court granted the respondent husband's motion to strike out the applicant wife's pleadings due to her repeated breaches of court orders, including failure to attend questioning and failure to provide proof of listing the jointly owned property in China for sale.

The court found the breaches willful and proportionate to the remedy of striking pleadings, and awarded costs to the husband.

The wife was given a final opportunity to restore her application by complying with outstanding orders and paying costs.

The Respondent Father brought a motion to dismiss the Applicant Mother's application for parenting, property division, and support, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction and that the Shanghai People's Court was the more appropriate forum.

The parties were divorced in China, and a Final Agreement covering these issues was issued by the Shanghai People's Court.

The court granted the Father's motion, dismissing the Mother's application, finding that the parties had attorned to the Shanghai jurisdiction and that an order already covered the outstanding issues.

The court determined that Ontario did not have jurisdiction for corollary relief under the Divorce Act following a valid foreign divorce, and while it could adjudicate Family Law Act claims, these issues were already addressed in China.

The respondent, Brian Milne, brought a motion for contempt against the applicant, Mo Yi (Jessie) Milne, alleging breach of a parenting order.

He also sought remedies including fines, enrollment in the Family Bridges Program, and police assistance.

Jessie brought a cross-motion to dismiss the contempt motion and request an Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) referral.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the order was not clear enough to establish contempt beyond a reasonable doubt, but found a breach on a balance of probabilities.

The court denied the request for the Family Bridges Program and police enforcement, deeming them inappropriate at this stage.

The OCL referral was also dismissed.

The court ordered a structured, increasing parenting schedule for Brian and the children, along with reunification therapy for Brian and the children, and individual therapy for the children, with costs split 55% by Jessie and 45% by Brian.

The plaintiff brought a motion to find the defendant in contempt of a previous court order requiring him to publish an apology for defamatory statements on social media.

The defendant failed to properly publish the apology until the hearing itself.

The court found the defendant in contempt but noted he had purged it during the hearing.

The defendant was sentenced to a conditional discharge with 12 months of probation, prohibiting him from repeating defamatory statements, and was ordered to pay costs on a full indemnity scale.

The defendants appealed an Associate Judge's order that required the net proceeds from the sale of two properties to be held in trust or paid into court upon the discharge of certificates of pending litigation (CPLs).

The defendants argued the plaintiff failed to make full and fair disclosure on the initial ex parte motion for the CPLs and that the Associate Judge failed to properly apply the test to vacate a CPL.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error in law in the Associate Judge's assessment of material disclosure, balancing of equities, or exercise of discretion to require security.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to enroll the child in reunification therapy, alleging parental alienation, and requesting police enforcement of an existing parenting order.

The child had been refusing to attend the father's home due to COVID-19 concerns and sibling conflict.

The court found no evidence of parental alienation or that the child required therapy.

The court declined to order police enforcement, finding it potentially traumatic, but amended the parenting schedule to gradually reintroduce overnight visits, emphasizing the mother's positive obligation to facilitate parenting time.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion to dismiss the respondent's application for matrimonial relief on jurisdictional grounds, arguing Ontario lacked jurisdiction or China was the more appropriate forum.

The motion judge found Ontario had jurisdiction but that China was not the clearly more appropriate forum.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of jurisdiction but found the motion judge erred in the forum non conveniens analysis by failing to adequately consider pre-existing marital agreements executed in China and overemphasizing the Ontario property.

The appeal was allowed, and the respondent's application was stayed, directing the matter to China.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay under Rules 24 and 48 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The underlying action, involving a shareholder dispute, was commenced in 2015.

The defendant was noted in default in 2017, and a default judgment was issued in 2018, which was later set aside in 2019.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the delay was largely attributable to the period when the defendant was in default and the suspension of limitation periods during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also found no intentional or contumelious delay by the plaintiff and no prejudice to the defendant.

The respondent wife brought a motion to dismiss the applicant husband's family law application, arguing that China was the more appropriate forum to determine their property and spousal support disputes.

The parties had married in China, obtained a joint divorce certificate there, and owned significant assets in China, though they also owned property and resided part-time in Ontario.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter due to a real and substantial connection, including the husband's claim for a constructive trust over an Ontario property.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding the wife failed to establish that China was a clearly more appropriate forum, particularly given the risk that the husband might be time-barred from pursuing property claims under Chinese law.

The applicant mother and respondent father both brought motions for temporary parenting of their 3-year-old child.

The father, who was in recovery for opioid use disorder, sought extended parenting time and relied on letters from his treating professionals.

The mother sought primary care and a more restricted schedule for the father, citing his inability to care for the child for extended periods without assistance.

The court found that the father's treating professionals were 'participant experts' but excluded portions of their letters that were partisan or exceeded their expertise.

The court granted primary care to the mother and ordered her proposed parenting schedule, finding it was in the child's best interests given the father's ongoing recovery and demonstrated difficulties in caring for the child independently.

This case involved a motion and cross-motion concerning interim parenting arrangements for two children, O. (almost 9) and T. (12), following the parents' separation.

The mother (applicant) had unilaterally relocated with O. and changed her school, while the father (respondent) sought O.'s return to her former school and residence.

The court addressed the children's residence, school, and parenting time, considering the best interests of the children, the impact of the mother's unilateral actions, and the special needs of T. The court also had to consider the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its effect on school operations and parenting schedules.

The mother was granted interim parenting time and decision-making for O. (excluding the September 2020 school decision), and the father for T. O.'s current school placement in Markham was maintained temporarily.

A specific interim parenting schedule was set, accounting for school closures due to COVID-19.

Neither party was awarded costs.

A case conference was ordered for June 2020 to address O.'s school for September 2020 and the OCL's position.

A focused trial concerning child support and a restraining order in a family law matter.

The applicant mother sought child support based on an imputed income of $32,928 retroactive to February 1, 2014, and a restraining order prohibiting the respondent father from contacting or coming within 500 metres of her and the children except for access purposes.

The respondent agreed to income imputation of $31,000 but opposed the restraining order.

The court found the father engaged in intentional underemployment, imputed income of $32,980, ordered retroactive child support from February 1, 2014, and granted the restraining order based on evidence of extensive domestic violence and abuse.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of claims arising from alleged oral agreements among siblings relating to a condominium investment in China and loans allegedly advanced to the defendant to purchase a property in Ontario.

The defendant argued lack of jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, abuse of process due to a parallel Small Claims action, and that the claims were statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that it possessed in personam jurisdiction over the Ontario-resident defendant and that the claims sought damages rather than a declaration of title to foreign land.

The court further concluded that Ontario was not an inappropriate forum and that genuine issues requiring a trial existed, including the existence of the alleged agreements and the discoverability of the limitation periods.

The defendant’s summary judgment motion was dismissed and the plaintiffs’ cross‑motion to amend pleadings and transfer and consolidate the Small Claims Court action was granted.

The applicant mother brought a motion to lift the automatic stay imposed on her custody and access application under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondent father had commenced a divorce proceeding in Superior Court of Justice seeking joint custody.

The court considered whether to lift the stay by examining bad faith, prejudice, and waste of court resources.

The court found that the father's divorce application was premature, issued after being served with the mother's application and despite knowing a court date was already scheduled.

The court determined that all issues except the divorce itself could be dealt with in the Ontario Court of Justice and that the mother would suffer prejudice if required to proceed in Superior Court, particularly given language barriers and her vulnerability to the father's control.

The motion was granted and the automatic stay was lifted.

A short marriage ended in litigation concerning divorce, equalization of net family property, ownership of a condominium purchased before marriage, and claims relating to wedding gifts and a motor vehicle.

The court found that the condominium had been purchased entirely with funds provided by the applicant’s parents prior to the marriage and that alleged payments by the respondent’s parents in China were not proven to have been transferred to the parties or intended to affect property division in Ontario.

Given the brief period of cohabitation and the respondent’s minimal financial contribution, equalization under s. 5 of the Family Law Act would have been unconscionable.

The court therefore ordered an unequal division of net family property, confirming the applicant’s sole ownership of the condominium and jewelry while recognizing the vehicle as a gift to the respondent.