Restraining order

The parties separated after a 28-year marriage.

The applicant sought retroactive and prospective child and spousal support, equalization, and a restraining order.

The respondent had moved to Pakistan, ceased paying support, and breached multiple court orders.

The court imputed income to the respondent, awarded retroactive child support, child support arrears, and lump sum prospective child and spousal support.

To satisfy the respondent's total obligations of $155,652.51, the court ordered his 50% interest in the matrimonial home vested in the applicant.

A restraining order was also granted due to a history of family violence.

The parties separated after a 30-year relationship and have two adult children: one in university and one with a profound developmental disability.

The court determined the parties' respective incomes for child support purposes, imputing corporate pre-tax income and personal expenses to the respondent father.

The court applied a budgetary approach under s. 3(2)(b) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines to determine child support for the disabled adult child, factoring in his ODSP benefits.

The court also resolved disputes over the control of the children's RESP and RDSP accounts, retrospective and prospective section 7 expenses, and the applicant mother's request for a restraining order and communication protocol, which were dismissed.

The applicant mother sought various orders in an uncontested trial, including sole decision-making responsibility, child support, a vesting order for the matrimonial home, and a restraining order against the respondent father.

The father had not participated in the litigation since 2019 and had a history of criminal charges involving the mother.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and imputed the father's income at $45,000 for child support purposes.

Given the significant child support arrears owed by the father, the court ordered that the mother's 1% interest in the matrimonial home vest in her absolutely.

The court also granted a restraining order, gave the mother sole control over the children's RESP accounts and travel documents, and awarded costs of $16,000 to the mother.

The applicant and respondent, both self-represented, sought various relief following a high-conflict separation.

The applicant sought sole decision-making responsibility, restricted parenting time for the respondent, equalization, child support, and a restraining order.

The respondent sought sole decision-making for the younger children, shared parenting time, and occupation rent.

The court found the respondent had engaged in family violence and coercive control, and the parties were unable to communicate or cooperate.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making responsibility and maintained the status quo for the respondent's parenting time.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, imputed income to both parties, and ordered the respondent to pay ongoing and retroactive child support, equalization, the Mahr, and post-separation adjustments totaling $148,965.54.

The court also granted a restraining order against the respondent and dismissed his claim for occupation rent.

The mother applied for sole decision-making, primary care, child support, and a restraining order following a highly conflicted separation marked by the father's family violence, harassment, and erratic behaviour.

The father, who was self-represented, sought primary care and refused to pay child support unless granted equal parenting time or primary care.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making and primary care, finding the father's history of abuse and inability to co-parent made joint decision-making impossible.

The court ordered supervised parenting time for the father, imputed his income for retroactive and ongoing child support, and issued a permanent restraining order to protect the mother and child.

The applicant brought a motion for exclusive possession of the jointly-owned matrimonial home and an interim restraining order against the respondent.

The respondent had recently returned to the home from the UK and engaged in intimidating and verbally abusive behaviour towards the applicant and their adult children.

The court found that the applicant and children had reasonable grounds to fear for their psychological and physical safety.

The motion for a restraining order and exclusive possession was granted.

In a family law proceeding, the parties brought competing motions seeking various interim relief including disclosure, equalization advances, support adjustments, reimbursement claims, and other orders.

The court emphasized that interim orders are intended to provide temporary structure pending trial and discouraged repeated motions attempting to re‑litigate previously determined issues.

Several claims were dismissed or deferred to trial due to insufficient evidence or because they were more appropriately resolved on a full evidentiary record.

The court increased interim spousal support after the cessation of child support and imputed limited farming income to the husband.

A restraining order was issued preventing the wife from accessing the husband’s financial records or business premises through self‑help methods.

In a child protection status review proceeding, the child protection agency brought a summary judgment motion seeking custody of the child to the mother, termination of the supervision order, no access to the father, and a restraining order.

The father opposed and sought a trial and placement of the child with him.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, finding ongoing protection concerns regarding the father including domestic violence history, inability to cooperate with the agency, inconsistent access, problematic interactions with the child, and lack of a viable parenting plan.

The court determined that continued access would undermine the child's stability with the mother and was not in the child’s best interests.

Custody was granted to the mother with no access to the father and a restraining order issued.

In a family law proceeding involving custody and access issues, the applicant sought a restraining order preventing the respondent from publishing or disseminating private intimate information about her on the internet.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction under s. 46 of the Family Law Act to issue such an order where threats of online disclosure created psychological and emotional fear.

The court held that reasonable grounds to fear for safety can include psychological safety and that threats to publicly disseminate intimate information could justify a restraining order.

The court further held that s. 46(3) permits broader terms where appropriate, including restrictions on online publication.

A restraining order was granted pending further court order to preserve a reasonable atmosphere for litigation and protect the parties and child.

In an uncontested family trial following separation and allegations of long‑standing domestic abuse, the court determined custody, support, property division, and related relief.

The applicant was granted final custody with supervised access to the respondent and a continuing restraining order.

The court valued the matrimonial home at $560,000, equalized the parties’ net family property, and ordered a vesting of title in the applicant subject to payments to the respondent.

The court imputed income to the respondent due to intentional unemployment and awarded lump sum child support to secure future support obligations.

Additional relief included exclusive possession of the home, a vesting order, and costs.

At a trial management conference in a family law proceeding involving custody, access, child support, and related relief, the court reviewed the status of prior orders and clarified the remaining issues for trial.

The court confirmed that custody had already been determined, while issues such as access, travel restrictions, passport control, child support income determination, and a potential restraining order remained for trial.

The court addressed disclosure issues, including ordering production of the full assessment file of a psychological evaluator and requiring financial disclosure from the respondent.

The endorsement also set deadlines for service of trial records, witness summaries, and document briefs, and restricted the parties from bringing further motions before trial.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant brought a motion for summary judgment following earlier default proceedings where the respondent had failed to deliver an Answer.

The court addressed issues of custody, access, child support, equalization, costs, and a restraining order.

Sole custody of the three children was granted to the applicant with specified access to the respondent, as the parties were unable to communicate effectively.

Child support was ordered based on an imputed income of $37,000 to the respondent, with a lump sum from the respondent’s share of the matrimonial home proceeds applied to future support.

The court also granted equalization payments, awarded costs to the applicant, issued a restraining order, and granted a divorce.

The applicant brought an urgent ex parte motion seeking exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and a restraining order against the respondent spouse.

The motion was based on affidavit evidence alleging escalating verbal threats, physical violence, and threats to destroy the home following the breakdown of the relationship.

Applying s. 24 and s. 46(1) of the Family Law Act, the court considered the best interests of the children, the parties’ financial circumstances, the parties’ domestic contract regarding the property, availability of alternative accommodation, and allegations of violence.

The court found there was evidence of a significant risk of harm if the parties remained in the same residence and granted interim interim exclusive possession and a restraining order pending a full hearing with notice.

A custody and access trial concerning a 10‑year‑old child where both parents sought sole custody and the father alternatively sought joint custody.

The court found the mother had historically managed the child’s medical and educational needs and that the father failed to cooperate with an Office of the Children’s Lawyer clinical investigation, failed to comply with prior court orders, and frequently breached access return times resulting in excessive school absences.

Joint custody was rejected due to the parties’ inability to communicate and ongoing conflict.

Sole custody and primary residence were granted to the mother, with the father receiving modified access that removed overnight visits on school nights.

Child support of $100 per month, including section 7 contributions, was ordered and costs of $12,000 were awarded against the father.

Investors and related applicants brought proceedings seeking receivership and related relief against several corporations and individuals connected to a charitable foundation.

Evidence showed the foundation transferred a Florida property to its directors shortly after learning of a pending motion seeking to restrain asset dissipation and appoint a receiver.

The court continued interim restraining and receivership orders and granted a full receivership order against certain corporate respondents other than the foundation.

The issue of whether the property transfer constituted a void transfer under s. 95(2) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act was adjourned to the scheduled bankruptcy trial.

The court also prohibited the release of funds held in a lawyer’s trust account and approved the receiver’s reports.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an extension of an ex parte restraining order against her spouse under family law proceedings.

The order had temporarily prevented the respondent from attending the matrimonial home.

The respondent opposed the extension and alleged the motion was intended to remove him from the home rather than address safety concerns.

The court found the alleged threats constituted verbal conflict within a volatile marital relationship but were unlikely to result in violence given the parties’ history and absence of prior violence.

The court concluded there was insufficient justification to continue the restraining order.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to vacate an existing restraining order and no-contact provisions preventing him from contacting the mother and the children.

The orders had been in place since 2008 and made final in 2009 following earlier litigation between the parties.

The father relied primarily on his recent acquittal on criminal charges relating to threats against the mother as justification for lifting the order.

The court held that the father failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances and provided no plan regarding contact with the children, nor the required parenting affidavit.

In the absence of a clear proposal addressing the children’s safety and best interests, the court declined to terminate the restraining order and dismissed the motion.

The respondent brought a motion for a restraining order and an order requiring the applicant to vacate a residential property he owned, while the applicant brought a cross‑motion seeking interim spousal support based on an alleged common law relationship.

The parties disputed whether they had cohabited in a continuous common law relationship and whether the applicant had any possessory or constructive trust interest in the home.

The court found there was an arguable case that the parties were in a common law relationship but that significant factual disputes remained, including issues relating to income and property interests.

To preserve the status quo pending trial, the court allowed the applicant to remain in the home in lieu of interim spousal support and declined to grant a formal restraining order.

The matter was ordered to proceed to an expedited trial.

Following a five‑year marriage with no children of the relationship, the parties sought divorce, mutual restraining orders, and spousal support.

The respondent alleged abuse and sought spousal support based on need and alleged underemployment by the applicant.

The court found the marriage was short, the respondent had become self‑sufficient since separation, and any economic disadvantage arising from the marriage was minimal.

A restraining order was granted against the applicant due to evidence of ongoing contact and harassment, but the respondent was denied spousal support.

Divorce was granted to both parties.

The mother brought a motion to terminate an ex parte restraining order and vary a temporary custody order granted to the father after she was charged with assaulting one of the children.

The court considered whether the outstanding criminal charge and related allegations justified maintaining the father’s temporary custody.

After reviewing the evidence, including the Office of the Children’s Lawyer investigation and the historical caregiving status quo, the court found no evidence that the mother could not provide a safe environment for the children.

The restraining order was terminated and temporary custody of two children was returned to the mother, restoring the pre‑incident status quo.

The issue of temporary custody of the third child was adjourned for further evidence and submissions.