Aaron Myer Franks

On an interim family law motion, the moving party sought child support, spousal support, and interim costs under r. 24(25) of the Family Law Rules while jurisdiction was disputed in parallel Yemen proceedings.

The court imputed interim income to the responding party based on available U.S. tax evidence and ordered retroactive monthly child support and interim spousal support from July 1, 2025, but declined to order interim s. 7 expenses on the existing record.

The court rejected the argument that a unilateral Yemen talaq barred interim spousal support, citing Divorce Act threshold requirements and public policy concerns.

The court granted substantial interim costs to level the litigation playing field and stayed the jurisdiction motion until support arrears and interim costs were paid.

Costs of the motion were also awarded to the moving party.

The appellant appealed an interim order requiring him to pay $45,000 per month in spousal support, arguing the motion judge erred by failing to apply the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAGs) for a high-income earner.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's case-specific analysis of the parties' means and needs.

The court noted that the SSAGs are not strictly presumptive for incomes over $350,000 and that interim orders are entitled to significant deference.

This decision concerns an appeal by James Brent Maxwell from an arbitration award regarding child support, retroactive child support, and costs, following a lengthy family law dispute with Lynne La Fontaine.

The court reviews the arbitrator’s findings on income imputation, retroactive support, and the application of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, particularly regarding support for adult children attending post-secondary education away from home.

The court finds that while the arbitrator made a reviewable error by failing to conduct a proper analysis under s. 3(2)(b) of the Guidelines for adult children living away from home, most other findings were within her discretion.

The appeal is allowed in part, with directions for further submissions on quantification if the parties cannot resolve the issue.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a motion by Barbara Lang-Newlands regarding the operation of the automatic stay under rule 63.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure following a family law trial judgment.

The court addressed whether certain monetary awards (post-separation adjustments) should be characterized as support and thus exempt from the stay, and whether the stay should be lifted or maintained on various payments pending appeal.

The court declined to recharacterize the payments as support, but exercised its discretion to lift the stay on Ian Newlands' obligation to pay post-separation adjustments, given the risk that Barb would not recover the funds if the stay remained.

The court ordered Barb to pay Ian the net difference and expedited the appeal.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a temporary spousal support order.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the sole issue of whether the motion judge failed to consider and apply the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Leave was denied on all other issues, including findings of fact and income determination.

The underlying decision was not stayed pending the appeal, and costs were reserved.

The mother appealed an order denying her permission to relocate her three-year-old daughter from Toronto to Ennis, Ireland.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made material errors, seriously misapprehended evidence, and committed legal errors in his "best interests of the child" analysis under the Divorce Act.

Specifically, the trial judge erred in assessing family violence allegations, making unfounded assumptions about the mother's family's attitude towards the child's biracial heritage, and concluding that the mother manipulated the court system.

The trial judge also erred by re-characterizing the relocation case as a "support case" and misapplying the burden of proof.

The appeal was allowed, the trial decision set aside, and a new trial ordered on an expedited basis, with costs awarded to the mother.

The appellant sought to appeal a costs award from a family law arbitration concerning retroactive and prospective spousal support.

The court addressed the jurisdictional question of whether leave was required for an appeal of a costs award from an arbitration, finding it was not required where the arbitration agreement did not stipulate it.

Applying appellate standards of review, the court upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding no errors in law, palpable and overriding errors of fact, or errors in principle regarding the determination of the successful party or the finding of unreasonable conduct by both parties.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

The appellant wife appealed a trial judge's order requiring her to make an equalization payment to the husband.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by ordering such a payment in an uncontested trial where the respondent husband provided no financial disclosure and never requested equalization.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error by ordering an equalization payment without an adequate factual basis due to the respondent's complete failure to disclose financial information.

The court emphasized the fundamental duty of financial disclosure in family law proceedings and set aside the equalization order, directing that no equalization payment was owing and the appellant was entitled to the full proceeds of the matrimonial home sale.

In a family law proceeding involving cryptocurrency assets, the applicant brought a long motion regarding disclosure.

The respondents sought leave under Rule 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to file an expert affidavit after having already cross-examined the applicant on her motion materials.

The court dismissed the request for leave, finding the respondents failed to show the evidence responded to a matter raised on cross-examination or provide an adequate explanation for the delay.

The court also ruled on several refusals from questioning, ordering the respondents to answer some questions while upholding other refusals.

The applicant brought a motion seeking the production of a corporate server (Decentral Server) for disclosure purposes, arguing the respondents had not adequately searched it.

This request had been previously dismissed by Justice Kiteley.

The applicant sought to revisit the prior decision, asserting new material facts, including the respondent's alleged failure to comply with an offer to conduct further searches and new expert evidence on e-discovery methods.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that the alleged new facts were either not fundamentally different from what was previously argued or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence at the time of the original motion.

The court affirmed that interlocutory orders are binding unless new, material, and previously undiscoverable facts are presented.

The applicant sought an urgent order to compel the respondent's attendance for cross-examination on an affidavit, following the respondent's refusal to attend due to the applicant's intention to have an expert assist counsel.

The court addressed the respondent's unilateral refusal to attend and the issue of whether leave is required for an expert to assist counsel at an out-of-court examination.

The court found that counsel do not need leave to bring assistants, including experts, to examinations, and that the onus to exclude such individuals lies with the party alleging prejudice.

The respondent's motion to exclude the expert was dismissed, and the respondent was ordered to attend cross-examination.

The moving party father sought to stay an arbitration award requiring him to pay over $1.8 million in retroactive child support and nearly $800,000 in costs pending his appeal.

The mother opposed the stay and brought a cross-motion for security for costs.

Applying the RJR-Macdonald test, the court found the father raised serious issues to be tried but failed to establish irreparable harm, noting his significant wealth and access to capital.

The court dismissed the motion to stay the child support award, granted a partial stay of the costs award, and ordered the father to post $75,000 as security for the costs of the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant brought a motion to proceed to an uncontested trial and to sell the matrimonial home after the respondent failed to file an Answer for over three months.

The respondent requested an extension of time to file his responding materials.

The court dismissed the respondent's request, finding the delay inordinate and unexplained.

The court granted the applicant's motion, allowing her to proceed uncontested and ordering the sale of the matrimonial home, with net proceeds to be held in trust.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, retroactive support, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent opposed spousal support, relying on a marriage contract that waived it.

The court found a serious triable issue regarding whether the marriage contract complied with the objectives of the Divorce Act, allowing an interim spousal support award of $25,500 per month and child support of $9,918 per month.

The court deferred the issue of retroactive support to trial but granted the applicant's request to order the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Papageorgiou J. dated November 12, 2021.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the applicant fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.

The applicant, A.B., brought a motion seeking orders for substitute service of her application materials on the respondent, C.D., by email, and for the anonymization of the names of the parties and their children in the court file.

A.B. alleged C.D. was involved in a multi-million-dollar fraud, leading to threats against her and the children, and C.D.'s whereabouts were unknown.

The court granted both requests, finding substitute service appropriate given C.D.'s evasion and anonymization necessary to protect the family from physical and psychological harm, balancing it against the open court principle.

Costs were awarded to the applicant for the substitute service portion of the motion.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 4, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000 all inclusive.

The appellant mother sought to change a custody order following her relocation from the Niagara region to the Ottawa area.

The trial judge rejected a proposed settlement, dismissed the motion to change, and ordered the children's primary residence to remain with the respondent father in Niagara, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal.

One week before the Supreme Court hearing, the parties jointly advised that changes had occurred affecting the record, including that the daughter had been residing in Ottawa for over a year.

The parties had not filed a motion for new evidence regarding the children's current best interests, leaving the record incomplete.

The Court unanimously dismissed the appeal without costs, directing any ongoing dispute to be resolved in the Superior Court through a variation order.

This appeal addressed whether pension payments divided at source for family law purposes can continue to a non-member spouse's estate after their death for the balance of the retired member spouse's life.

The motion judge had ruled this was precluded by the Pension Benefits Act (PBA).

The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that nothing in the PBA, Family Law Act (FLA), or the Family Law Matters Regulation (O. Reg. 287/11) prevents such an arrangement.

The court emphasized that the "Family Law Matters" sections of the PBA (ss. 67.1-67.9) and the Regulation govern these issues, not general pension provisions.

The appeal was allowed, clarifying that such continuation is permissible if provided for by agreement, court order, or arbitration award.