L.L. Snowie

In this matrimonial trial, the applicant wife sought sole custody, child support, and an equalization payment, while the respondent husband sought joint custody and spousal support.

The court found the respondent to be highly evasive, having failed to comply with numerous disclosure orders and having fabricated a backdated trust agreement to hide his ownership of a lucrative Israeli business.

The court granted the applicant sole custody, dispensed with the respondent's consent for the child's passport, imputed the respondent's income at $47,000 per year for child support purposes, and ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $235,209.75.

The respondent's claim for spousal support was dismissed.

Following a family law trial involving divorce, custody, access, travel permissions, and support issues, the court determined the applicant was overwhelmingly the successful party.

The applicant obtained divorce, sole custody, a non-removal order, travel authorization, and a restraining order, while the respondent’s claims were entirely dismissed.

Although the applicant did not succeed on spousal support, retroactive child support, or a request relating to a religious divorce, the court found the balance of success strongly favoured her.

The court fixed costs in the applicant’s favour.

The applicant mother and respondent father engaged in a highly conflicted six-year family law dispute over the custody and access of their two children.

The mother struggled with substance abuse and mental health issues, while the father engaged in alienating behaviour, particularly with the older child.

The court considered the admissibility of surreptitious tape recordings made by the mother, ultimately admitting them as their probative value outweighed the prejudice.

Despite the father's alienating behaviour, the court found the children were settled in his care.

The court ordered joint custody with the father having final decision-making authority and primary residence, and established a graduated access schedule for the mother.

Child support payable by the mother was reduced to zero due to her loss of employment and poverty, and the enforcement of arrears was stayed.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and spousal support following the breakdown of the parties' marriage.

The respondent father, who resides in Dubai, sought sole or joint custody and opposed the support claims.

The court found the father to be controlling, abusive, and a flight risk, noting his refusal to grant a Muslim 'Talaq' divorce and his threats to take the child to Pakistan.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, ordered graduated and restricted access for the father conditional on surrendering his passports, and imputed a grossed-up income of $239,200 to the father for child support purposes.

The mother's claim for spousal support was dismissed due to the short marriage and her stable income.

In a family law proceeding, the court addressed costs following a motion in which a child protection agency sought intervener status regarding a custody and access determination.

The court had previously concluded that the agency lacked a bona fide interest in the matter and had lost its objectivity and professionalism, displaying bias against the mother.

The mother successfully opposed the agency’s request and was entirely successful on the motion.

The court determined that a self‑represented litigant may recover modest compensation for time spent but declined to award an hourly rate equivalent to that of a lawyer.

Costs were fixed based on the mother’s previous hourly earnings plus disbursements.

The court determined costs following a prior family law motion in which the applicant mother was substantially successful.

The self-represented applicant sought compensation for time spent preparing and arguing the motion.

The court found that she conducted herself professionally and efficiently despite facing a represented party.

In light of the significant preparation required and the unfounded allegations made against her, the court awarded modest costs compensating her time at her previous hourly wage plus disbursements.

In a family law trial regarding equalization, the respondent husband sought to exclude $219,000 from his net family property, claiming it was traceable to inheritances and gifts.

The court found the respondent failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to trace the funds into his shareholder loan or subsequent investment accounts.

The court also determined the date of marriage value of the respondent's 20% interest in the family business was zero, rejecting the respondent's proposed expert evidence due to lack of independence and insufficient data.

A divorce judgment was granted.

Family law trial addressing child support, parenting arrangements, property division, and equalization following a brief marriage and separation.

The court ordered ongoing child support based on the respondent’s income and calculated arrears for prior years where guideline support had not been fully paid.

The applicant was granted sole custody with defined parenting time to the respondent and proportional sharing of section 7 expenses.

The court denied spousal support and determined the parties’ separation date for equalization purposes.

After accounting for mortgage payments, child support arrears, and equalization obligations, the applicant was required to pay a net amount to purchase the respondent’s interest in the matrimonial home.

The successful party on a motion for summary judgment sought costs following the court’s disposition of the motion.

The court confirmed that the moving party had been entirely successful and therefore entitled to recover costs thrown away.

The court ordered the responding party to pay costs in the amount of $29,426.61.

Payment was directed to be made forthwith and in any event within 30 days.

The applicant, Clear Channel, held a non-exclusive licence to install and maintain advertising displays at Pearson Airport.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) assessed Clear Channel as a taxable tenant of the Crown under section 18(1) of the Assessment Act.

Clear Channel brought an application arguing it was a licensee, not a tenant.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) retained total control over the premises and paramount occupancy, while Clear Channel merely provided a service.

The court concluded Clear Channel was not a tenant and quashed the assessments.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action alleging negligence and lack of informed consent arising from cosmetic breast augmentation and tummy tuck surgery.

The court excluded the plaintiffs’ expert evidence because the expert lacked familiarity with the Ontario standard of care, leaving no admissible evidence on the negligence claim.

The court therefore dismissed the standard of care allegations but proceeded on the issue of informed consent.

Considering the patient’s limited English proficiency, education, and the circumstances surrounding the consultations and consent forms, the court found that the physician failed to ensure the patient understood the material risks and consequences of the procedures.

The court held that a reasonable person in the patient’s circumstances would not have proceeded had adequate disclosure been made, and awarded damages.

On a family law motion concerning a trust fund established by prior consent order to secure child support, the moving party sought release of the full $200,000 trust balance to himself.

The court found persistent non-payment of child support and section 7 expenses, extensive evidence of undisclosed capital resources, and repeated misrepresentations affecting credibility.

Income was imputed to the moving party, arrears were quantified, and the court assessed ongoing and future support obligations against the trust’s intended protective purpose.

Applying the Family Law Act support principles and the terms of the prior order, the court directed that the full trust balance with accrued interest be paid to the responding party for child support purposes.

All other relief was dismissed, with costs submissions to follow.

Following a proceeding between former spouses, the successful party sought costs.

The court confirmed that the successful applicant was entitled to costs against the respondent.

Rather than fixing the amount, the court directed that the quantum be determined by an Assessment Officer.

The decision addresses entitlement to costs only.

The Children's Aid Society applied for a prohibition or stay of a hearing before the Child and Family Services Board regarding the removal of a special needs Crown ward from his foster parents.

The Society argued the foster parents were not entitled to notice because the child had not lived with them continuously for two years due to a temporary treatment placement.

The court found the temporary placement did not interrupt the continuous care period and that the foster parents were entitled to notice.

The court dismissed the Society's application for judicial review as premature and ordered the child to remain with the foster parents pending the Board's hearing.