Jirina Bulger

The landlord obtained an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board due to the tenant's failure to pay rent.

The tenant appealed the decision to the Divisional Court.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The court found that the tenant's grounds of appeal related solely to the Board Member's assessment and weighing of evidence, which do not constitute questions of law as required by section 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

Concluding that the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit and commenced for the purpose of delay, the court quashed the appeal and ordered the tenant to pay costs.

The moving party sought to set aside an uncontested final order that had rescinded $48,000 in child support arrears.

The responding party had obtained the order without disclosing a prior Quebec judgment that had already refused to cancel those same arrears.

The court found this omission was akin to fraud, granting jurisdiction to set aside the order under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules.

Applying the Mountain View Farms factors, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the order, noting the moving party's plausible excuse for default due to mental health struggles and the severe prejudice she would face if the arrears remained cancelled.

The applicant father and respondent mother both brought motions for temporary relief regarding their child.

The father, who had been convicted of sexually assaulting the mother, sought gradually increasing access, while the mother sought sole custody and to terminate any access.

The court found that the mother had previously consented to an order for supervised access and denied her request to appeal it.

Applying the principle that terminating access is a remedy of last resort, the court ordered temporary supervised access for the father for one hour twice a month.

The court also granted the mother temporary sole custody and dispensed with the father's consent for travel and schooling.

The appellant, a declared vexatious litigant, appealed a child support variation order that awarded lump sum child support to the respondent and dismissed his request for a retroactive reduction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lump sum award and the dismissal of the retroactive reduction, noting the appellant's failure to pay support voluntarily, lack of financial disclosure, and protracted litigation.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred in failing to consider the appellant's motion for leave to request access to the child.

The appeal was allowed only to permit the appellant to request leave to bring a motion for access, and was otherwise dismissed.

The appellant father appealed and the respondent mother cross-appealed the trial judge's orders regarding access, property interests, and costs.

The father did not attend the hearing and advised he no longer wished to be involved.

The Court of Appeal allowed the cross-appeal in part, modifying the access order to be as requested by the 14-year-old child, given fresh evidence that she had not seen her father in three years and did not want access.

The court dismissed the cross-appeal regarding property interests and costs, finding no error in the trial judge's application of resulting trust and partnership principles, nor in the discretionary costs award.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to vary child support and declaring certain family law rules unconstitutional.

The motion judge had also declared the appellant a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, requiring him to seek leave before commencing further proceedings and to post $5,000 as security for costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed most of the appeal, finding the issues were res judicata and no change in financial circumstances was proven.

However, the appeal was allowed in part to delete the $5,000 security for costs requirement, which the court found unreasonable.

The mother appealed a trial judgment ordering joint custody of the parties' three children and requiring her to pay child and spousal support.

The Court of Appeal upheld the joint custody order, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the parents could communicate effectively regarding the children.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding support, finding the trial judge erred by failing to impute income to the father despite evidence he worked part-time while receiving a disability pension.

The Court also set aside the future support orders due to the uncertainty of multiple contingencies, ordering instead that each parent bear the expense of supporting the children while in their care.

The appellant appealed a judgment striking out his pleadings following a lengthy period of demonstrating a cavalier attitude toward court orders.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the judicial discretion exercised to strike the pleadings, nor any error in the conduct of the trial or its result.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

In a family property appeal concerning equalization of a vested defined benefit pension, the Supreme Court addressed whether the pension should be valued using the termination value-added method or the termination pro rata method under Ontario’s Family Law Act.

The majority held that the Act does not mandate the value-added method and that, absent special circumstances, the pro rata method more equitably reflects the nature of a defined benefit pension, particularly where there is substantial pre-marital pensionable service.

The court upheld the trial judge’s assumed retirement date, refused to make “if and when” pension payments the default settlement mechanism, and left spousal support undisturbed.

The appeal was allowed only on pension valuation method and costs, and the matter was remanded for recalculation of the equalization payment.