James B.C. Edney

The moving party brought a motion to dismiss the responding party's family law application on the basis that the issues were already resolved by a valid divorce judgment in China.

The responding party had initiated the divorce proceedings in China, which granted the divorce and ordered child support, but deferred property division.

The court found the Chinese divorce valid under the Divorce Act.

Consequently, the responding party's claims for divorce, spousal support, and child support in Ontario were dismissed as an attempt at forum shopping.

The claim for equalization of net family property was stayed pending the outcome of the ongoing property proceedings in China.

The respondent brought a motion seeking declarations that he had complied with a prior disclosure order and that no further monetary penalties were owing.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought an adjournment, which was denied.

The court found that the respondent had made extraordinary efforts to comply with the voluminous disclosure requests and had substantially complied by July 18, 2022.

The court determined that the respondent had overpaid the accrued penalties and ordered the applicant to reimburse him $29,300 USD.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking a declaration that the respondent husband breached a prior court endorsement, an Automatic Order, and Rule 13 of the Family Law Rules regarding financial disclosure.

The court found the husband in breach of the Automatic Order for failing to provide complete tax and disability income documentation, and noted a prior breach of the endorsement regarding his attendance at questioning.

The court ordered the husband to comply with the Automatic Order and to provide comprehensive responses and supporting documents to the wife's Request for Information, particularly concerning his expenses, bank statements, and unilateral withdrawals from a joint line of credit.

The applicant sought an order for production of financial disclosure from third parties (the respondent's father, family corporations, and a family trust) pursuant to the Family Law Rules and Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant and respondent are involved in family proceedings concerning child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The applicant sought to set aside a domestic contract and alleged the respondent's reported income had declined significantly post-separation despite evidence of substantially higher cash flow during the marriage.

The third parties opposed production, arguing the motion was premature and that the domestic contract must first be set aside.

The court found the motion was not premature, that the applicant had met her onus, and that disclosure was necessary to fairly determine the respondent's true income and net family property.

The court ordered production of financial statements and corporate tax returns from the companies and details of non-arm's length expenses from all third parties, subject to confidentiality terms.

The applicant sought interim spousal and child support from the respondent in a common law relationship that lasted approximately 16 years.

The respondent's parents and brother brought a summary judgment motion for possession of the matrimonial home.

The court granted the summary judgment motion for possession, finding that the applicant had no possessory rights as a common law spouse and no valid constructive trust claim.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on gifts and housing benefits provided by his parents and ordered that interim spousal support commence upon the applicant's vacation of the property.

The court deferred determination of the quantum of support and child support pending further submissions.

The moving party sought leave to appeal and a stay of a paragraph of a lower court order.

The Divisional Court granted both leave to appeal and the stay, awarding costs of $2,500 to the moving party.

The parties were directed to schedule a case management conference and consider whether the appeal might become moot pending a motion to vary.

The moving party husband sought a stay of a lower court order requiring him to produce an updated financial statement, pending the disposition of his appeal.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the husband failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as compliance with the order would not constitute attornment to the court's jurisdiction.

The balance of convenience favoured the wife, given the fundamental obligation for financial disclosure in family law proceedings.

The husband was ordered to comply with the production order and pay costs.

The applicant father sought an order for unsupervised parenting time with his two young children, H. (8) and O. (4), after seven months of no contact following his arrest on serious criminal charges, including assault and sexual assault.

The respondent mother opposed, insisting on supervised parenting time due to concerns about family violence and the children's safety.

The court, applying the best interests of the child principle and considering family violence factors under the Divorce Act, found that supervised parenting time was necessary.

The father's request for unsupervised access was denied.

The motion was adjourned to allow the father to propose suitable supervisors, who must provide affidavits confirming their willingness and duty to prioritize the children's best interests.

The court also requested the Office of the Children's Lawyer to reconsider its involvement to conduct a clinical investigation.

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 sought an urgent case conference or motion date at TBST Court to remove the respondent from his home, claiming they were only together for four months and were not spouses.

The respondent's brief revealed they had lived together since 2013, were engaged, and the applicant was currently living with his daughter as a surety after being charged with assaulting the respondent.

The court found the matter was not urgent, noting the applicant's brief was selective to the point of being misleading and misused the TBST Court process.

The request was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $1,500 in costs to the respondent.

Following a motion regarding interim support and control of a business, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The applicant sought $26,072.49 based on unaccepted offers to settle, while the respondent argued for costs to be deferred to trial, claiming mixed success.

The court found the applicant was the successful party and declined to defer costs.

The court awarded the applicant $17,000 in costs on an elevated partial indemnity scale of 66%, reflecting condemnation of the respondent's failure to adhere to previous court orders.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of R.F. Macleod J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,229.03.

The respondent sought leave to amend her Answer to claim retroactive and ongoing child support for her adult daughter from a previous relationship.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing the claim was legally untenable because the daughter was no longer a 'child of the marriage' under the Divorce Act.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed amendment pleaded facts that could support a finding that the daughter remained a child of the marriage at the material time, and that recent Supreme Court jurisprudence has called into question the strict jurisdictional bar on retroactive support for adult children.

The parties brought competing motions in a high-conflict family law dispute.

The applicant sought control of the family business, AKA Creative Inc., and the return of his belongings, arguing the respondent breached a prior ex-parte order.

The respondent sought interim child support, spousal support, and proportionate sharing of special expenses based on an imputed income of $300,000 for the applicant.

The court granted the applicant's motion, finding the respondent had not respected the prior order and that the applicant, as majority shareholder, should manage the business.

The court partially granted the respondent's motion, imputing an income of $50,000 to the applicant and $18,720 to the respondent, and ordered go-forward child support and proportionate sharing of private school expenses.

The respondent brought a motion to vary an interim child and spousal support order, arguing that his business income had significantly declined due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that he had 'better information' as contemplated by the original order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the financial information provided by the respondent was incomplete, lacked independent expert corroboration, and did not constitute the 'better information' required to justify varying an interim support order.

The court also declined to adjust section 7 expenses, leaving that issue for the trial judge.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant sought disclosure of various corporate and financial records relating to businesses owned by the respondent and his family.

The court ordered disclosure of corporate financial records back to 2014 for business valuation purposes, as well as post-March 2020 records relevant to a pending motion to reduce support due to the pandemic.

The court also ordered the respondents to request accounting records from their accountants and to produce commercial leases subject to a confidentiality agreement and notice to landlords.

The applicant sought urgent relief regarding access to their fifteen-month-old child, Samuel, including unsupervised access and a modified 2-2-3 schedule.

The respondent opposed, arguing the matter was not urgent and brought a cross-motion for continued primary residence and the existing interim access schedule.

The court, applying the "urgency" test from the Chief Justice's Notice to the Profession during the COVID-19 pandemic, found the initial access issue urgent but the request for an equal time-sharing schedule was not.

The court expanded the applicant's interim unsupervised access schedule, emphasizing the child's best interests and the parents' prior co-parenting involvement, while noting the Children's Aid Society found no ongoing violence.

The applicant's request for a 2/2/5 schedule was adjourned for a more fulsome record.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a temporary spousal and child support order, arguing the motions judge failed to apply a shared parenting offset.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that even if a factual error occurred, the issue did not meet the test for leave to appeal.

The court emphasized that temporary support orders are designed to maintain a reasonable state of affairs pending trial, and errors are better addressed at trial rather than through costly interlocutory appeals.

The court issued reasons specifically to discourage the family law bar from bringing unmeritorious motions for leave to appeal temporary support orders.

The father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of his two young children to Massachusetts, their habitual residence, after the mother wrongfully retained them in Ontario following a consented visit.

The court found that Massachusetts was the children's habitual residence, the father had custody rights which he was exercising, and the mother's retention was wrongful due to deceit.

The court dismissed the mother's defence of grave risk of harm, finding the alleged abuse insufficient to meet the high threshold.

The children were ordered to be returned to Massachusetts.

This endorsement confirms Justice Diamond's appointment as the case management judge for the proceeding.

It addresses the scheduling of a long motion concerning jurisdiction (Ontario or Massachusetts) and a potential Hague Convention application for the return of children to Massachusetts.

The judge directs that the Hague Convention application should ideally proceed earlier and separately from the jurisdiction issue.