Maria T. Linhares de Sousa

On competing family law motions, the court held that a 23-year-old adult child pursuing expensive studies in the United States was not a child of the marriage for purposes of support under the Divorce Act.

Interim spousal support entitlement was uncontested, but the dispute concerned income imputation and quantum.

The court imputed income of $15,000 to the applicant spouse and $157,000 to the respondent spouse, rejected the respondent's position that he could not work on the evidence filed, and ordered retroactive interim spousal support of $6,800 per month from June 1, 2014 with credits for specified payments.

Ongoing interim spousal support of $5,500 per month was ordered effective January 1, 2015, together with reimbursement of life insurance premiums and payment of arrears from trust funds.

In a child protection status review application, the applicant society sought a final order of custody to the children's maternal grandmother under s. 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court found the mother's alcoholism remained unresolved, with repeated relapses and no reliable evidence of sustained sobriety, while the children had been thriving in a stable kinship placement with their grandmother and maternal aunt.

Applying the best interests factors in s. 37(3), the court concluded that security, continuity, family support, and cultural and religious consistency favoured the existing placement.

A final order of custody was granted to the grandmother, with continued access to the mother at the grandmother's discretion.

In a matrimonial trial concerning property, support, and security, the court valued the respondent's closely held business at $307,000, rejected the asserted permanence of large family loan obligations, and found that a condominium transferred to the respondent by his parents remained beneficially his notwithstanding a later transfer back during the litigation.

The condominium's value was attributed to the respondent as excluded property for equalization purposes, and the court ordered an equalization payment of $140,000.

The applicant was awarded lump sum compensatory spousal support of $56,000, but no ongoing or retroactive child support was ordered given the shared parenting arrangement and the parties' relative capacities.

To secure payment, title to the Mississauga condominium was vested in the applicant for sale, subject to accounting for any net excess.

Following an uncontested family trial, the court granted the mother sole custody of the parties' twin children, finding joint decision-making unworkable because of ongoing high parental conflict and toxic communication.

The court maintained the existing regular access regime, added a detailed holiday schedule, and ordered ongoing child support based on an imputed annual income reflected in the prior record.

It also fixed monthly section 7 contributions, quantified support arrears, and ordered payment of disputed daycare and hospital parking expenses.

The court further found unjust enrichment arising from debts and financial losses paid by the mother for the father's benefit during cohabitation and ordered reimbursement.

Costs were awarded to the respondent due to substantial success and the applicant's unreasonable non-compliance with disclosure orders.

In a child protection trial involving three young children, the court found the children in need of protection on grounds of actual and risk of physical harm and emotional harm arising from neglect, chronic household clutter, poor hygiene, rigid and conflictual parenting, and the caregiver’s inability to meet the children’s emotional needs.

The court accepted expert psycho-legal evidence that the children had significant attachment-related difficulties and that the caregiver’s personality structure and parenting style made meaningful change unlikely within the children’s timelines.

The court held that Crown wardship with a view to adoption was the least intrusive disposition consistent with the children’s best interests.

No access order was made, although sibling contact was expected to continue where possible.

A custodial parent sought child support for five children, including retroactive adjustment of support and reimbursement of special and extraordinary expenses.

The court found that the payor parent failed to comply with prior disclosure orders and provided incomplete financial information, requiring the court to rely on the best available evidence to determine income.

Applying the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court determined that the payor’s income between 2009 and 2014 warranted significantly higher table support than previously paid.

Arrears for base child support and special expenses were calculated and ordered payable on a structured schedule.

Claims of undue hardship and lack of notice for special expenses were rejected.

The Children's Aid Society brought a status review application seeking to terminate its supervision order over a young child.

Both parents agreed to the termination but disputed the subsequent custody and access arrangement under section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The mother sought primary care or joint custody with primary residence, while the father sought sole or joint custody with primary residence.

The court considered the child's best interests, noting the parents' high conflict, the father's pending deportation proceedings, and the child's positive development under the existing shared parenting arrangement.

The court ordered joint legal custody with primary residence to the mother, maintaining the child's attendance at an Ontario school, and granted the mother a restraining order against the father.

Following a successful appeal that certified a class action against the Toronto Police Services Board, the court determined the costs of the original certification motion.

The appellant sought over $749,000, while the respondent argued for costs thrown away or no costs due to the appellant significantly reformulating her claim on appeal.

The Divisional Court held that while the appellant was entitled to costs because the case involved matters of public interest, the amount must be reduced to reflect the time spent on claims against defendants that were later abandoned.

The court fixed the costs of the original certification motion at $125,728.03 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The accused faced 22 charges involving seven different female complainants, including sexual assault, unlawful confinement, theft, mischief, and criminal harassment.

The accused targeted intoxicated women in the Ottawa market area, offering them rides in his vehicle, taking them to his apartment, and stealing their cell phones.

He subsequently used the stolen phones to harass the victims and others.

The court applied the W.(D.) test to assess credibility, rejecting the accused's testimony as unreliable and contradictory.

The accused was found guilty on 20 of the 22 counts, with the court finding that he unlawfully confined and sexually assaulted multiple victims, stole their property, and engaged in persistent criminal harassment.

The applicant brought a motion to vary a prior spousal support order to continue support in accordance with the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and to obtain retroactive support after the respondent ceased payments when the prior order allowed either party to seek variation.

The respondent argued his obligation terminated automatically and opposed retroactive support due to delay in bringing the motion.

The court found the interpretation issue moot but held it had jurisdiction under the Divorce Act to vary support retroactively.

Medical evidence established the applicant was unable to work due to health issues, constituting a material change in circumstances.

Ongoing support was ordered at the low range of the SSAG and made retroactive, with arrears payable by installments.

The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of a motion to certify a class action against the Toronto Police Services Board arising from mass detentions during the 2010 G20 summit.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the requirements for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met.

The court certified two separate class actions: one for five location-based subclasses who were allegedly arbitrarily detained by police cordons, and another for individuals held at a specially created detention centre.

The moving parties and responding parties both brought motions under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to vary or set aside an earlier order that denied a stay of a Renewable Energy Approval but granted an injunction subject to an undertaking as to damages.

The Divisional Court held that Rule 63.02 does not confer jurisdiction to stay a Renewable Energy Approval, as it is not an 'order' within the meaning of the rule.

The court found no error in the motion judge's exercise of inherent jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief under Rule 40 instead.

Both the motion and cross-motion were dismissed.

The Crown sought admission of cross-count similar fact evidence in a multi-count indictment involving allegations of sexual assault, forcible confinement, theft, and criminal harassment involving several complainants.

Identity was admitted by the accused, leaving actus reus, modus operandi, and complainant credibility as live issues.

Applying the governing test from R. v. Handy, the court assessed whether the probative value of the proposed evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect.

The court found striking contextual similarities across several complainants, including circumstances involving intoxicated victims, use of a vehicle, loss of personal property, and subsequent communications from the accused.

Most of the requested similar fact evidence was admitted, subject to limited exceptions where the nexus between incidents was insufficient.

In a criminal trial, the Crown brought a motion seeking admission of a witness’s prior e-mail statement as past recollection recorded.

The witness had no present memory of certain events but confirmed she had authored the statement and believed it to be truthful when made.

The court applied the four-part test for past recollection recorded evidence set out in R. v. Fliss and affirmed in appellate authority.

Despite a three‑week delay between the incident and the creation of the statement, and defence arguments regarding possible tainting through discussions with others, the court found the record reliable, made within a reasonable time, and vouched for by the witness.

The statement was therefore admitted as evidence.

The court determined costs following a family law motion where success was divided between the parties.

Applying the general principle that costs follow the event but considering the mixed outcome, the court concluded that neither party achieved sufficient success to justify a costs award.

Each party was therefore ordered to bear their own legal costs of the motion.

Following family law motions in which success was divided between the parties, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The court found that neither party had behaved particularly reasonably during the proceedings.

Applying the discretionary principles governing costs in family law matters, the court declined to award costs to either side.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

On a voir dire, the court considered whether a lengthy videotaped police interview of the accused was voluntary and admissible under the common law confessions rule.

The defence argued that the interview involved oppressive circumstances and inducements and that the statement should alternatively be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter for breach of the accused’s s. 10(b) right to counsel.

The court applied the framework in R. v. Oickle and examined the entire context of the interrogation, including duration, questioning techniques, and the accused’s conduct during the interview.

The court found the interview was not oppressive and that the accused generally retained control over what information he shared.

However, certain comments by police suggesting that speaking could affect which charges were pursued created a quid pro quo inducement raising a reasonable doubt about voluntariness for statements made thereafter.

The court admitted the portion of the interview up to a specified point in the transcript and excluded the remainder.

The successful appellants, Ostrander Point GP Inc. and the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, sought costs following their successful appeal of an Environmental Review Tribunal decision regarding a wind turbine development.

The respondents, Prince Edward County Field Naturalists (PECFN) and Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (APPEC), argued that no costs should be awarded as it was public interest litigation.

The Divisional Court applied the five-factor test for public interest litigation and concluded that costs should be awarded, as the respondents had a direct interest and the appellant was a private actor.

The court fixed costs at $40,000 against PECFN and $10,000 against APPEC, plus transcript disbursements.

The applicant sought reinstatement of spousal support after the respondent unilaterally suspended payments under Minutes of Settlement resolving family law issues following separation.

The respondent claimed the applicant removed household items contrary to the agreement and relied on a clause permitting suspension of support pending an accounting.

The court found ambiguity and contradiction in the settlement terms governing division of household chattels and concluded the agreement did not clearly resolve the issue.

As a result, the respondent was not entitled to suspend support payments.

The court ordered an accounting of household chattels before an arbitrator and directed that ongoing support and arrears be paid into court pending resolution.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Master's summary judgment order that upheld the validity of his late mother's will and dismissed his notice of objection.

The appellant, who had been estranged from his mother for 40 years and received a $200 legacy, argued the Master exceeded his jurisdiction, misapprehended evidence regarding testamentary capacity, and demonstrated bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Master correctly applied the test for summary judgment, did not exceed his jurisdiction, and reasonably concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial based on the consistent evidence of the estate.