J. W. Scott

The applicant sought an order to release a transcript of statements made by the respondent during a settlement conference, alleging contradictions with the respondent's sworn statements regarding employment and income.

The respondent opposed, asserting the confidentiality of settlement conferences.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing that settlement conferences are confidential to foster open discussion and resolution, as per Rule 17(23) of the Family Law Rules.

The court held that unsworn statements from a settlement conference are not equivalent to sworn testimony and that the applicant had alternative means to introduce contradictory evidence.

The court reiterated its role as a gatekeeper against disclosure, reserving exceptions for extraordinary circumstances like safety risks, which were not present.

This family law trial addressed the date of separation, child support calculations, and a property interest claim in the matrimonial home.

The court determined the separation date as February 2012.

The respondent's claim for a resulting trust or unjust enrichment in the matrimonial home was dismissed due to non-disclosure during his bankruptcy.

The court retroactively adjusted child support from 2017, granting the respondent a small credit for overpayment for 2017-2019, and set ongoing child support using a set-off approach.

The respondent was also ordered to contribute to Section 7 expenses.

The applicant sought to set aside a marriage contract entered into with the respondent shortly after their marriage.

The contract provided for a regime of separate property and a waiver of spousal support unless the marriage lasted at least ten years.

The parties separated after three and a half years.

The applicant argued the contract should be set aside under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act due to lack of financial disclosure, failure to understand its nature and consequences, and unconscionability.

The court found that while the respondent failed to disclose significant assets, the applicant had independent legal advice, understood the contract, and there was no duress or unconscionability.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to set aside the contract.

The court also dismissed the applicant's claim to set aside the spousal support waiver under section 33(4), finding no unconscionable circumstances.

The respondent father, a resident of France, brought a motion to strike the applicant mother's claim for child support in Ontario, arguing that an existing French court order already addressed the issue.

The court applied the Muscutt factors and found a real and substantial connection to Ontario, as the children habitually reside there.

Distinguishing previous case law, the court held that because custody and access were also being legitimately litigated in Ontario, it was appropriate to assume jurisdiction over child support to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The motion to strike was dismissed.

A child protection status review under the Child and Family Services Act considered whether a child should be returned to the mother, placed under custody with relatives, or made a Crown ward for adoption.

The court found the child continued to require protection due to the mother's instability, failure to comply with prior supervision conditions, and lack of preparation to address the child's developmental and behavioural needs.

Evidence showed the child had made significant progress in a kinship placement where caregivers had actively secured medical, educational, and therapeutic supports.

The court held that permanence and stability through adoption best served the child’s long‑term interests.

Crown wardship was ordered with limited monthly access to the mother that would not impair the child’s adoption prospects.