Jonathan Kline

The applicant brought a motion seeking to amend his Response to a Motion to Change to include relief regarding child support and financial disclosure, and to set aside a prior order that allowed the respondent to amend her pleadings.

The court dismissed the motion to amend, finding that the applicant's concerns related to the enforcement of an existing disclosure order, which should be pursued separately under Rules 1(8) and 26 of the Family Law Rules rather than delaying the pending parenting issues.

The court also dismissed the motion to set aside the prior order, concluding that the applicant's inability to file responding materials would not have changed the outcome.

Costs of $2,700 were awarded to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Terrence Chapman, who sought a 50% share in real estate and corporate assets held with Sandra Ing, his former partner in both business and personal life.

The trial judge found that the parties were not involved in a joint family venture and that Chapman would be unjustly enriched by an equal division, given Ing’s substantial contributions to the value of the property in question.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision, finding no juristic reason for Chapman’s enrichment under the Ontario Business Corporations Act and confirming the appropriateness of a proprietary remedy in favour of Ing.

The Applicant mother and Respondent father each brought motions seeking various relief concerning custody, access, and support for their two young children.

A key preliminary issue was the admissibility of an expert report from the mother's psychotherapist, which the court found inadmissible due to lack of expertise and objectivity.

The court determined it was in the children's best interests for their primary residence to remain with the mother, but rejected the mother's request for supervised access, ordering unsupervised access for the father with escalating parenting time.

Interim child and spousal support payments were ordered, and the support motion was adjourned for further evidence.

The maternal grandparents of an 8-year-old child appealed an order granting custody to the mother and allowing her to relocate to British Columbia.

The grandparents obtained a stay of the custody order pending appeal from a single judge of the Court of Appeal.

The mother sought a review of the stay order.

The panel set aside the stay, finding that the motion judge had relied on a misleading record containing fresh evidence that did not meet the Palmer test, and that the test for a stay was not met given the lower court's factual findings regarding the mother's capability and the child's best interests.

Following a motion to change seeking termination or reduction of long‑term spousal support, the court addressed costs after the responding party successfully defended the support order.

Although the court found a material change in circumstances due to the recipient’s failure to pursue employment, it declined to reduce support and noted the payor had been paying less than the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines suggested.

The court held the responding party was the successful party and had beaten a prior settlement offer.

The court also considered the moving party’s incomplete financial disclosure and unreasonable settlement offers.

Full recovery costs were awarded to the responding party.

On a motion to change spousal support arising from a 26-year common law relationship, the moving party sought termination or reduction of indefinite support on the basis that the recipient had failed to make reasonable efforts toward self-sufficiency.

The court found a material change because the recipient admitted he was capable of work and had not made reasonable efforts to obtain employment, and it imputed income of $30,000 to him.

However, applying compensatory and non-compensatory support principles for a long traditional relationship, together with the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court held the recipient remained entitled to indefinite support and that the existing monthly payment was already below the guideline range.

The motion succeeded only to the extent of the finding of material change and imputation of income, but no reduction, step-down, termination, or review was ordered.

The applicant sought costs following the dismissal of the respondent's motion to set aside or vacate an arbitrator's award, remove the arbitrator, declare the mediation/arbitration agreement void, stay the arbitration, and determine the child's school for the 2012/2013 school year.

The applicant claimed full indemnity costs of $4,788.38, while the respondent sought no costs order.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant but reduced the amount to account for time spent on a prior motion step that was not compensated at that time.

The father brought a motion seeking to set aside an arbitration award made by Linda Chodos regarding the school placement of the parties' child for the 2012/2013 school year.

The father sought removal of the arbitrator, a declaration that the mediation/arbitration agreement was invalid, a stay of the arbitration, and a temporary parenting order.

The mother opposed the motion and sought a stay of the parenting proceeding.

The court found that the Ontario Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction to set aside the award, challenge the arbitrator, or remove the arbitrator.

The court determined that the arbitrator did not resign and that the mediation/arbitration agreement remained in force.

The court dismissed the father's motion and granted a stay of the parenting proceeding, allowing the arbitration process to continue.