Jen Yii Liew

The parties separated after a 32-year marriage.

Before the marriage, the respondent wife received shares in her father's business.

During the marriage, an estate freeze was executed, transferring the growth value of the shares to a new family trust settled by her father for $100.

The trial judge, feeling bound by prior appellate jurisprudence, excluded the wife's interest in the trust from her net family property as a gift after marriage.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, distinguishing the prior case and holding that the trust interest was traceable to the pre-marital gift.

The trust interest was included in net family property, but the equalization payment was reduced to $18 million under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act due to unconscionability.

Retroactive spousal support was ordered, but prospective support was denied.

The trial costs award against the appellant husband was upheld.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a motion by Barbara Lang-Newlands regarding the operation of the automatic stay under rule 63.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure following a family law trial judgment.

The court addressed whether certain monetary awards (post-separation adjustments) should be characterized as support and thus exempt from the stay, and whether the stay should be lifted or maintained on various payments pending appeal.

The court declined to recharacterize the payments as support, but exercised its discretion to lift the stay on Ian Newlands' obligation to pay post-separation adjustments, given the risk that Barb would not recover the funds if the stay remained.

The court ordered Barb to pay Ian the net difference and expedited the appeal.

The parties separated after a 32-year marriage.

The applicant's father had established a highly successful business.

Before the marriage, the father settled a trust holding shares in the business for the applicant.

During the marriage, the applicant received the shares and later participated in an estate freeze, transferring the shares to a holding company in exchange for preferred shares, while a new trust (the NFT) acquired the common shares.

The applicant and her children were discretionary beneficiaries of the NFT.

The main issue was whether the applicant's interest in the NFT was property subject to equalization, and if so, whether it was excluded as a gift.

The court found the interest was property, but bound by the Court of Appeal's decision in Shinder v. Shinder, held it was an excluded gift.

The court also determined the valuation of various assets, dismissed the respondent's unjust enrichment claim to a cottage, and ordered the applicant to pay an equalization payment of $1.18M and needs-based spousal support of $25,649 per month.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision that dismissed his claim to set aside a separation agreement.

He argued that he was misled regarding the valuation of the matrimonial home during negotiations.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no deliberate misrepresentation and that the appellant had chosen not to obtain his own valuation to save time and money.

The appeal, along with a request for leave to appeal the costs order, was dismissed.

This is a decision on an interim motion for spousal and child support.

The Applicant wife sought support from the Respondent husband, who derives income from family corporations.

The court addressed the husband's income determination, including corporate losses from new business ventures, and the imputation of income to the wife due to intentional underemployment.

The court applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAGs) and the Child Support Guidelines, setting interim spousal and child support amounts effective March 1, 2024, and outlining the sharing of matrimonial home costs and Section 7 expenses.

Retroactive support claims were deferred to trial.

The adult children of the parties brought a motion to be added as third parties to a long-standing family law application, asserting that their interests as discretionary beneficiaries in a family trust (Newlands Family Trust) could be prejudiced by decisions made at the upcoming trial.

The motion was filed on the eve of a six-week trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no compelling explanation for the significant delay in bringing the application, and noting the uncertainty regarding the children's standing and the prematurity of their purported cause of action, as discretionary beneficiaries do not possess a direct property interest in trust assets prior to appropriation.

The court emphasized that adding parties late in proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only when demonstrably necessary for the just determination of the litigation.

Costs were awarded against the moving parties.

The applicant mother sought to continue the children's enrollment at a private school, Branksome Hall, while the respondent father sought enrollment at the local public school.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, ordering both children to attend the local public school.

The decision was based on the children's best interests, considering behavioral issues at the private school, the lack of a spot for one child, and the mother's consistent failure to ensure timely school attendance.

This decision addresses interim spousal and child support.

The court determined the respondent's income by including legitimate corporate business losses, rejecting the applicant's higher income estimates based on lifestyle and inflated budgets.

Income was imputed to the applicant due to intentional underemployment.

Interim spousal and set-off child support orders were made, effective March 1, 2024, with section 7 expenses shared 80% by the respondent and 20% by the applicant.

Retroactive support claims were deferred to trial due to prior uncharacterized payments.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated June 7, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the respondent.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of Mr. Fotak's appeal and motion.

Ms. Capone sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The Court of Appeal, applying Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules and considering reasonableness and proportionality, awarded Ms. Capone global costs of $15,000, inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing a motion to stay ten previous family law orders, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to improper service under the Hague Service Convention.

The appellant also brought a motion to quash a case management judge's decision regarding the proper and timely service of responding appeal materials.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that service was proper under the Convention and Ontario rules, and that the appellant had attorned to the court's jurisdiction through participation in the proceedings.

The court also found no error in the refusal to grant a stay, applying the RJR-MacDonald test, and dismissed the motion to quash the case management judge's decision.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 4, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000 all inclusive.

The respondent father brought a motion to stay ten prior court orders dating back to 2013, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because he was not properly served in New York under the Hague Service Convention.

The court found that the Hague Service Convention applied, but that the respondent was properly served by FedEx as permitted by Ontario law and the Convention's postal channel provisions.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to grant a stay under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, finding that the respondent failed the RJR-MacDonald test and that staying the orders would cause immense prejudice to the applicant mother, who was owed over $2.5 million in support arrears.

The appellant obtained leave to appeal a temporary support order.

However, a trial date was subsequently scheduled to commence shortly.

The Divisional Court stayed the appeal pending the trial, noting that interlocutory appeals in family law are generally discouraged, the temporary order would not bind the trial judge, and proceeding with the appeal would disrupt the trial process and waste judicial resources.

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

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs fixed at $5,000 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel, and directed the parties to arrange an appeal schedule.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support and interim disbursements following the breakdown of a 13-year relationship.

The parties enjoyed a lavish lifestyle, and the applicant was financially dependent on the respondent.

The court awarded interim spousal support of $72,000 per month, finding the applicant established a reasonable case based on the respondent's significant wealth and the parties' standard of living.

The court also awarded $200,000 in interim disbursements to level the playing field in the high-conflict litigation, noting the funds were necessary to pay legal and expert professionals.

Following a motion for temporary child support, the party seeking costs sought full indemnity costs.

The court found that the opposing party had behaved unreasonably by failing to provide evidence of current income, making irrelevant submissions, and failing to accept a reasonable offer to settle.

The court awarded full indemnity costs in the amount of $19,924.73.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court decision dated May 21, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $3,600 to the responding party.

The court determined costs following a case conference, a preservation motion, and a jurisdiction motion in a family law proceeding.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs, while the applicant argued he should not pay costs and sought his own costs, alleging bad faith by the respondent.

The court found that the applicant had acted in bad faith and abused the court's process by deceiving the court about his reasons for an adjournment.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs for the case conference, substantial indemnity costs for the preservation motion, and full indemnity costs for the jurisdiction motion, totaling $35,532.87.

The respondent mother brought a motion for temporary and retroactive child support and section 7 expenses.

The applicant father, a high-income physician who relocated to the United States, argued that the Federal Child Support Guidelines should not apply because the children reside in Tennessee where the cost of living is lower, and his income exceeds $150,000.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the Guidelines applied and the table amount was appropriate.

The court imputed the father's income at over $716,000 for 2020 and 2021 due to his failure to provide reliable current income information.

The father was ordered to pay $8,874 per month in ongoing child support, 72.3% of ongoing section 7 expenses, and over $234,000 in retroactive support and expenses.