Kenneth G. Hood

The parties sought a determination of their respective incomes for child support purposes following a joint parenting arrangement.

The court held that a $20,000 general damages settlement received by the applicant from her former employer was income for child support purposes because she used the funds for living expenses.

For the respondent, a real estate agent, the court excluded RRSP withdrawals that were quickly re-deposited, but imputed income for commissions he voluntarily forewent when acting on real estate transactions for his new wife.

The court ordered straight set-off child support based on the determined incomes and awarded the respondent $5,000 in costs thrown away for parenting claims the applicant had advanced and later withdrawn.

The applicant's law firm brought a motion to be removed as solicitors of record and to deduct its outstanding legal fees from settlement funds held in trust.

The respondent had deposited the funds with the law firm on the strict undertaking that they be held without deduction until the applicant signed a formal separation agreement.

The court granted the removal but dismissed the request to deduct fees, finding that the law firm was bound by its undertaking to the respondent.

The court ordered the full settlement amount to be paid into court pending execution of the agreement.

Following a 36-year traditional marriage, the parties sought resolution of equalization and spousal support issues.

The court determined the value of the respondent's corporate law practice interests, preferring the respondent's expert evidence.

The court found the respondent's inheritance could not be excluded as it was used to pay down a joint line of credit.

The applicant was awarded indefinite spousal support of $25,000 per month based on strong compensatory and needs-based grounds, given the respondent's high income and the length of the marriage.

The respondent's claim for occupation rent was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought an action against his former wife alleging misappropriation of joint property and claiming a resulting trust in a property located at 177 Morningview Trail.

The parties had previously entered into a Separation Agreement in Florida in 1999, which divided their assets and released all claims.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found no evidence to support the plaintiff's allegations of misappropriation or his claim to an interest in the property.

The documentary evidence confirmed the defendant as the sole beneficial owner of the property, and the plaintiff failed to produce any written agreement to the contrary as required by the Statute of Frauds.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought equalization following a brief marriage, while the respondent relied on a 2012 document signed in Israel to argue that equalization had been contracted out of under the Family Law Act.

The court held that the document did not clearly oust equalization, was not properly witnessed as required by s. 55(1), and in any event should be set aside under s. 56(4) because the applicant did not understand its nature or consequences in the context in which it was created.

The court therefore determined the equalization amount rather than remitting the issue, deducting disposition costs from the matrimonial home and fixing the total owing at $132,050.85 after post-separation adjustments.

The respondent's spousal support claim was dismissed for lack of evidentiary foundation and entitlement.

The respondent father brought a motion to expand his parenting time with the two younger children (aged 10 and 14) and to remove supervision.

The applicant mother opposed immediate overnights but agreed to increased supervised time.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) provided the children's views, which favored a gradual increase in parenting time with continued supervision, especially given the respondent's mental health history.

The court adopted a graduated schedule, increasing unsupervised time incrementally, but denied the respondent's request for immediate alternating weekends or overnights, emphasizing the children's best interests and their preference for a slower pace.

The applicant was deemed the successful party and awarded costs.

The creditor brought a motion for an order compelling the garnishee to pay the outstanding judgment amount, arguing strict liability under Rule 60.08(17) due to the garnishee's failure to file a garnishee's statement and make full payment.

The garnishee contended that Rule 60.08(17) remained discretionary and asserted a right to set-off against the debtors due to alleged overpayment on another project and the debtors' insolvency.

The court found Rule 60.08(17) to be discretionary, ordered the immediate payment of a portion of the holdback funds ($35,006), and suspended the payment of the remaining judgment balance ($131,949) pending a determination in a related construction lien proceeding.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a parenting order and child support, seeking equal parenting time and a variation of support, citing a material change in circumstances.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking financial disclosure, child support, section 7 expenses, and retroactive support.

The court dismissed the father's motion and cross-motion, finding no material change in circumstances to justify varying the parenting order and noting the father's persistent failure to provide ordered financial disclosure.

The original child support and section 7 expense orders were reinstated, and the father was ordered to pay agreed-upon arrears.

The applicant initiated divorce proceedings and sought equalization of net family property, initially asserting a marriage.

Later, he claimed the parties were not legally married, leading to a trial to determine the validity of their marriage.

The court examined evidence regarding Nigerian customary and statutory marriages, including the concept of "double-decker" marriages.

The applicant's credibility was found to be low, and the court concluded that the parties were validly married under both Nigerian customary and statutory law, and thus were spouses under Ontario's Family Law Act.

This trial decision addressed financial issues between divorced parents, specifically the determination of the applicant's income for child support and the imputation of income to the respondent.

The court upheld the parties' Separation Agreement, which stipulated using the applicant's T4 employment income for child support calculations, rejecting the respondent's unsubstantiated claims of hidden income through stock options or restricted share units (RSUs).

The court accepted expert and employer testimony confirming the applicant's T4 accurately reflected his total compensation.

Furthermore, the court imputed an annual income of $35,000 to the respondent, finding her intentionally unemployed or under-employed, and ordered her to pay child support arrears.

The plaintiff general contractor sued the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) and other owners for approximately $193 million in damages arising from the delayed construction of the Steeles West Subway Station.

The project was delayed by 1,047 days due to incomplete designs, utility issues, and numerous changes directed by the TTC.

The court found the TTC responsible for the delay and awarded the plaintiff damages for extended contract performance, acceleration costs, underfunded change directives, and unpaid notices of intent to claim.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's attempt to flow through subcontractor claims where liquidating agreements had extinguished the plaintiff's liability.

The TTC's counterclaim for liquidated damages was dismissed as a penalty.

The plaintiff was granted a construction lien for $57,697,627.06.

The applicant challenged her mother's 2015 will, alleging lack of knowledge and approval, lack of testamentary capacity, and suspicious circumstances.

The 2015 will divided the estate equally among the three children, whereas a previous 2013 will had left the majority of the estate to the applicant.

The court found no suspicious circumstances, preferring the evidence of the drafting solicitor and the deceased's family doctor over the retrospective analysis of the applicant's expert geriatric psychiatrist.

The court concluded the deceased had the necessary testamentary capacity and dismissed the application.

The moving party sought to vary a 1999 divorce judgment that ordered him to pay $388,000 in spousal support, of which he had paid only $160,000 before defaulting in 2001.

He argued that the failure of his business, his health issues, and his new family constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court dismissed the motion to change the support amount, finding that the business failure was foreseeable and his health issues did not impact his earning capacity.

However, the court granted his request to strike a default provision in the judgment that doubled the outstanding support plus $50,000, finding it to be an unenforceable penalty clause.

The moving party brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a determination that the parties separated on August 5, 2018, and an order dismissing the responding party's claims for spousal support.

The court found that the parties separated on February 20, 2019, based on the objective evidence of their continued relationship and attempts at reconciliation.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment regarding spousal support, holding that support issues should be determined at trial alongside property and equalization issues to avoid inconsistent findings and ensure a comprehensive analysis.

In an uncontested trial, the court addressed parenting, equalization, and support issues between the applicant father (AF) and respondent mother (RM).

The court determined the separation date as January 31, 2014.

Joint custody was ordered, with the AF having final decision-making authority for dental care.

A detailed parenting schedule was established for the children.

The court calculated the AF's income for support purposes, rejecting his arguments for a lower income, and found an equalization payment of $1,445,798 owing from the AF to the RM.

The AF's request to reduce this payment based on alleged overpaid child support and other expenses was denied.

Set-off child support was ordered for the RM in the amount of $8,575 per month, with the AF continuing to pay all s. 7 expenses.

No order for spousal support was made, as the RM explicitly refused to accept it.

The applicant father sought joint custody, limited access, a cap on s. 7 expenses, no spousal support, and minimal equalization.

The respondent mother sought sole custody, access with all children, no cap on s. 7 expenses, spousal support, and higher equalization.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer supported the mother's position on custody and access for all children.

The court granted the mother sole custody, ordered the father to have parenting time with all four children, dismissed the father's request for a cap on s. 7 expenses, ordered the father to pay spousal support of $450 per month, and an equalization payment of $7,265.

The court found the father's parenting style inflexible and his SSAG calculation manipulated.

The applicant, Wendel McLean, sought a stay of proceedings under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing unreasonable post-conviction delay in the context of a dangerous offender application.

McLean was convicted of robbery with a firearm and break and enter, and the Crown initiated dangerous offender proceedings.

McLean argued that the 20-month delay between conviction and the scheduled dangerous offender hearing exceeded the 5-month presumptive ceiling for post-conviction delay set by R. v. Charley, after deducting delays attributable to him and the s. 752.1 assessment application.

The Crown contended that the entire dangerous offender proceeding is an exceptional circumstance to be deducted and that it acted reasonably.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the dangerous offender application as a whole is an exceptional circumstance, and the Crown had mitigated any resulting delay, thus no delay exceeding the presumptive ceiling was found.

The applicant mother sought to vary a previous order regarding international travel for the parties' son, Adam, specifically to allow travel to Morocco.

The original order restricted international travel until Adam reached certain ages to reduce parental conflict.

The applicant argued a material change in circumstances due to her mother's medical condition preventing travel to Canada.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no material change in circumstances, as the medical evidence was insufficient and the grandmother's inability to travel would not have altered the original decision, which prioritized reducing parental conflict.

The applicant sought an urgent order to relocate with the parties' one-year-old daughter, Freya, from Toronto to Victoria, B.C., citing a new job opportunity and psychological isolation in Toronto.

The respondent opposed the motion, emphasizing the importance of the child's attachment to both parents.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that the proposed move was not in the child's best interests, as it would drastically reduce contact with the father during a critical developmental stage and disrupt the child's daily routine.

Donald Earhart, an inmate serving a life sentence, applied for a writ of habeas corpus with certiorari in aid after being involuntarily transferred from a medium to a maximum security facility and having his security classification increased.

He argued procedural unfairness, claiming the warden made overly broad privilege claims, failed to consider exculpatory evidence, and relied on insufficient evidence without a logical reasoning chain.

The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) contended that disclosure was sufficient, the applicant knew the case against him, and the warden's administrative decision was entitled to deference.

The court dismissed the application, finding the process procedurally fair and the warden's decision lawful and reasonable, based on the inmate's behavior pattern, breach of trust history, and psychological risk assessment, in addition to alleged assaults.