Malina A. Roshan

The Supreme Court of Canada considered whether to recognize a new tort of intimate partner violence in the context of family law proceedings.

The appellant wife had suffered a 16-year pattern of physical, psychological, and financial abuse by her husband.

The majority of the Court recognized the new tort of intimate partner violence, focusing on the harm of coercive control and the deprivation of autonomy, dignity, and equality.

The Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the trial judge's damages award to fall entirely under general compensatory damages for the new tort.

The dissenting judges argued that existing torts were sufficient to compensate the wife and that recognizing a new tort was unnecessary and procedurally inappropriate in this case.

This family law trial determined the valuation date for equalization where the spouses continued living under the same roof for years after their relationship deteriorated.

The court applied a holistic and objective analysis of the parties’ routines, vacations, sleeping arrangements, financial practices, family events, tax filings, and declarations to assess when they separated with no reasonable prospect of resuming cohabitation.

The respondent’s evidence supporting a 2014 separation date was rejected on credibility grounds, while the applicant’s evidence established only a temporary separation in 2016-2017 followed by reconciliation.

The court declared the separation date to be December 18, 2019 for purposes of s. 4 of the Family Law Act.

The applicant brought a motion for disclosure and a preservation order in a family law proceeding.

She sought original promissory notes for ink testing, virtual tracing of electronic signatures, proof of interest payments, and tracing of funds related to the respondent's withdrawals from a joint HELOC.

The court adjourned the request for original notes on consent, and dismissed the remaining disclosure requests, finding the respondent had provided answers and the issues were better suited for trial.

The request for a preservation order was dismissed without prejudice as it was outside the scope of the leave granted for the motion and lacked urgency.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment that created a novel tort of 'family violence' and awarded the respondent wife $150,000 in damages for intimate partner violence during their marriage.

The Court of Appeal held that while tort claims can be brought in family law proceedings, the trial judge erred in creating a new tort because existing torts—battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress—adequately address the pattern of physical, emotional, and financial abuse.

The Court also declined to recognize a proposed tort of 'coercive control'.

The Court upheld the $100,000 award for compensatory and aggravated damages but set aside the $50,000 punitive damages award, finding the other damages sufficient to achieve condemnation.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following an 11-day trial concerning property equalization, child support, spousal support, and a claim for damages related to family violence.

The court found the Mother (Respondent) to be more successful overall, particularly on the novel tort claim for family violence and the Father's income imputation.

Despite the Father's arguments for divided success, the court awarded costs to the Mother, considering her relative success, the parties' conduct, the complexity of issues, and the Mother's offers to settle.

The Father was ordered to pay the Mother $20,000 in all-inclusive costs, which included a portion for her self-representation time.

This document provides supplementary reasons to a prior judgment (A.A. v. K.A., 2022 ONSC 1303), correcting calculation errors related to retroactive child support, retroactive spousal support, and the final accounting between the parties.

The corrections resulted in an updated total amount owing from the Father to the Mother, specifically an additional $8,049 in full satisfaction of family and civil claims, and revised retroactive spousal support of $30,555.

The court also ordered that neither party claim tax deductions for the retroactive support due to the revised after-tax cost/benefit calculations.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice heard an 11-day trial concerning property equalization, child support, spousal support, and a claim for damages related to family violence.

The court recognized a common law tort of family violence, finding the Father liable for a 16-year pattern of physical, psychological, and financial abuse.

The Mother was awarded $150,000 in compensatory, aggravated, and punitive damages for the tort.

The court also made findings on the parties' incomes, ordered retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, and determined the final equalization payment, largely in the Mother's favour.

This motion concerned a mobility dispute where the respondent father sought an order for the applicant mother to re-establish residency with the child in Brampton, while the applicant mother sought approval for her relocation to Toronto.

The court, applying the 'best interests of the child' principle and factors from Gordon v Goertz and Plumley v Plumley, found compelling reasons for the mother's move, including childcare and financial benefits.

The court dismissed the father's motion and permitted the child to reside with the mother in Toronto, determining that the relocation was in the child's best interests despite arguments regarding the status quo.

During the COVID-19 court suspension, the respondent sought an urgent access motion for their baby daughter, and the applicant filed a cross-motion for temporary custody, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and property relief.

The court applied a higher urgency test based on the Superior Court of Justice Notice to the Profession dated March 15, 2020.

Both the motion and cross-motion were dismissed as not meeting the urgency criteria, which required risks akin to child safety or well-being, or imminent financial harm.

The court emphasized the importance of parental negotiation to resolve access issues, especially during the crisis, citing recent jurisprudence on maintaining contact with both parents.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order for the parties' 13-year-old son to move with her and his younger sisters to Ajax.

The respondent father opposed the move, arguing the son should remain in Mississauga where he attends school and plays high-level soccer.

The court conducted a confidential interview with the child.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court determined that the son should remain in Mississauga on an interim basis to minimize disruption to his schooling and soccer routines, but ordered a robust access schedule to ensure he maintains contact with his mother and sisters.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a 2003 child support order based on changed circumstances.

He had lost employment due to injury and sought to reduce support to zero.

The respondent mother sought retroactive variation for three years, claiming the applicant had failed to disclose employment income as required by the original order.

The court found the applicant had breached his disclosure obligations and ordered retroactive support from May 1, 2010 based on actual income earned in each year.

For 2013, the court imputed income equivalent to full-time minimum wage rather than accepting the respondent's argument to impute income based on expenses.

The court also ordered the applicant to contribute to school uniforms and shoes as section 7 expenses and suspended ongoing support during his full-time college retraining period while requiring arrears payments.

The respondent in a family proceeding brought a motion to set aside a Certificate of Pending Litigation registered against residential property, arguing the applicant had no reasonable claim to an interest in the land.

The applicant asserted a constructive, resulting, or implied trust based on unjust enrichment arising from an eight‑year cohabitation during which she performed domestic and caregiving roles that allegedly enabled the respondent to focus on his business activities.

Applying the test under s. 103(6) of the Courts of Justice Act and the principles in Kerr v. Baranow, the court held that although the claim appeared weak, it was not devoid of merit and constituted a reasonable claim to an interest in land.

The court further exercised its equitable discretion to maintain the certificate, noting evidence that the moving party had previously engaged in sham transfers and asset shielding.

The motion to discharge the Certificate of Pending Litigation was dismissed.