Katherine Robinson

The appellant, who had a long history of family law litigation and outstanding costs and child support arrears, appealed an SCJ order that quashed his previous appeals as an abuse of process.

He also brought motions to adduce fresh evidence and to review a single judge's decision dismissing his motion to amend his notice of appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the fresh evidence motion as irrelevant and the review motion as meritless.

The Court exercised its discretion to refuse to entertain the appeal due to the appellant's continuing disobedience of court orders regarding financial obligations, and noted there was no basis for appellate intervention in any event.

The Court of Appeal considered multiple motions brought by the appellant, Eric Collins, including an extension of time to appeal a final parenting decision, a stay of interim child support orders, and a request to combine appeals.

The respondent, Amber Tiveron, opposed these motions and brought her own motion for security for costs.

The court denied Collins' request for an extension of time, citing jurisdictional issues and the best interests of the children.

His motion for a stay of orders was also denied, as the appeal lacked serious merit and any potential harm was reparable.

Tiveron's motion for security for costs was denied because Collins' appeals were either not properly filed or vulnerable to being quashed, and the underlying grounds were not deemed frivolous or vexatious despite past litigation conduct.

All motions were dismissed, and costs were awarded to Tiveron.

The appellant, Eric Collins, appealed an interim order from the Ontario Court of Justice that imputed income to him for child support purposes and ordered him to pay child support and arrears.

The appeal also included a motion to introduce fresh evidence and allegations of judicial bias.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no clear error in the lower court's imputation of income, no evidence of bias, and that the proposed fresh evidence was irrelevant.

The decision reiterated the high standard for appellate interference with interim orders and the deferential standard of review.

The respondent husband brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant wife's claims for equalization, spousal support, and a freezing of assets.

The parties separated in 2005, but the wife did not commence her application until 2018.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the equalization claim was statute-barred and the wife failed to meet the test to extend the limitation period under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act due to a lack of apparent grounds for relief, lack of good faith in the delay, and substantial prejudice to the husband.

The court also dismissed the spousal support claim, finding no compensatory basis and that the wife's financial hardship arose from regulatory penalties for securities fraud, not the marriage breakdown.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the husband.

Maternal grandparents sought access to their two young grandchildren following the death of the children's mother by suicide.

The father opposed the application and sought to restrict contact.

The court granted the grandparents' motion to appoint the Office of the Children's Lawyer to investigate and report on the matter.

The court found sufficient merit to the grandparents' access claim and determined that it was in the children's best interests to have the OCL investigate, despite the father's concerns about intrusiveness and the children's stated reluctance to have contact.

The appellant appealed from a Superior Court decision upholding a trial judgment in a matrimonial case.

The trial judge had imposed a restraining order, prohibited the appellant from initiating further court proceedings without leave, awarded costs of $52,899.32 to the respondent, and the appellant alleged judicial bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding that the trial judge's interventions were appropriate and designed to clarify evidence and maintain trial control in a high-conflict case involving a self-represented litigant.

The restraining order was justified by findings of persistent abusive behaviour and threatening communications.

The prohibition on further proceedings was grounded in the litigation history and the appellant's admitted future litigious intentions.

The costs award was properly reasoned and not plainly wrong.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final order to permit her to move with the parties' four-year-old child from Toronto to Belleville.

The mother sought the move due to the high cost of housing in Toronto and her desire to provide the child with a larger home and his own bedroom.

The respondent father opposed the move, arguing it would negatively impact his access.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined the move was in the child's best interests, noting the mother's willingness to facilitate access by sharing the driving.

The court also ordered the father to pay arrears for section 7 expenses and imputed his income at $110,000 for child support purposes.

The parties made submissions regarding the costs of two prior motions dealing with parenting and child support.

The applicant sought costs on a full or partial recovery basis, while the respondent argued each party should bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found that success was divided on both motions and that the applicant's costs were disproportionate.

The court ordered that neither party shall pay or recover costs.

This endorsement addresses cross-motions concerning parenting issues and child support.

The Respondent sought a specific parenting schedule and a s. 30 assessment, while the Applicant sought a different parenting schedule, an order to engage a child therapist, and temporary and retroactive child support, including s. 7 expenses.

The court established a temporary parenting schedule based on alternate 3-night weekends with specific holiday arrangements, dismissing the Respondent's request for an immediate 50/50 split and the Applicant's request for a child therapist.

A s. 30 assessment was ordered due to the toxic parental relationship and differing views on the children's needs, with costs to be shared equally.

The court determined the Respondent's income for child support at $324,923 CAD, rejected his undue hardship claim, and ordered him to pay $4,013 per month in child support.

The Applicant's claim for ongoing s. 7 expenses (except for nanny costs, which were to be negotiated) and retroactive support was dismissed or adjourned to trial.

The Appellant appealed a trial decision regarding a restraining order and a requirement to obtain leave for future family law proceedings.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or bias by the trial judge.

It affirmed that genuine fear of psychological harm justifies a restraining order and that requiring leave for future proceedings was appropriate given the history of high conflict between the parties.

The court also awarded costs to the Respondent's pro bono counsel.

The applicant brought multiple interim motions in a family law dispute concerning custody, access, child support, travel with the child, birth registration, and spousal support following a short marriage and the birth of one child.

The court declined to grant interim sole custody, determining that custody should be decided at trial while maintaining the existing access schedule recommended by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and implemented in a prior order.

Child support was recalculated after imputing income to the respondent based on add-backs of personal business expenses, resulting in support of $565 per month, while retroactive support was deferred to trial due to conflicting evidence.

Requests for a restraining order, interim spousal support, and certain additional restrictions on access were denied.

The court also ordered the respondent to be added to the child’s birth registration, established terms for travel within North America, addressed section 7 expenses, and required disclosure regarding life insurance securing child support obligations.

The applicant mother sought temporary custody of two children (ages 9 and 10), child support, and permission to relocate with the children to Florida to accept a nursing position.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought temporary custody or, alternatively, joint custody with weekend access.

The court granted temporary custody to the mother but dismissed her motion to relocate to Florida on a temporary basis, finding that genuine issues required a trial.

The court ordered the father to pay child support and granted him access on two out of every three weekends, with alternating weeks during summer.

A referral was made to the Office of the Children's Lawyer to obtain independent evidence regarding the children's views and preferences.