Mary E. Marshman

In a family law trial where most issues were resolved on consent, the only dispute concerned the manner of satisfying the equalization obligation.

The court held that ss. 9 and 10.1 of the Family Law Act do not create any presumption that equalization must be effected by an immediate transfer from a pension plan.

Applying the statutory factors, the court found the equalization amount was modest relative to the liquid assets available from the pending sale of the matrimonial home, and that a pension transfer was not appropriate on these facts.

A divorce was granted and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $35,660.

In a child protection status review involving eight children, the court considered whether the children should remain in the care of the Children’s Aid Society pending trial and whether certain children required independent legal representation.

Applying the Child and Family Services Act, the court determined that three of the older children should receive legal representation under s. 38, while younger children were too young to meaningfully instruct counsel.

The court found that the Society established ongoing protection concerns including inadequate supervision, poor school attendance, domestic violence exposure, and the caregiver’s inability to manage the children’s needs.

Proposed placements with family members and the return of several children to the mother’s care were rejected due to insufficient information and unresolved risk factors.

All children were ordered to remain in the Society’s care on an interim basis with access arrangements for family members.

The father brought a motion seeking unsupervised access and a return of the children to his care, while the mother sought continuation of supervised access and termination of telephone contact.

The court reviewed extensive materials and prior orders finding that the father had engaged in ongoing parental alienation and continued to raise adult issues with the children during access.

The court determined that the father had not demonstrated behavioural change or progress through counselling sufficient to justify unsupervised access.

Concerns also remained regarding the potential risk of international removal of the children.

The court ordered permanent supervised access and terminated regularly scheduled telephone access except in limited circumstances where weekly in‑person access does not occur.

The applicant sought to adjourn a family law custody and access trial until after the resolution of related criminal charges, arguing that proceeding with the family trial first would prejudice his criminal defence by requiring disclosure of facts relevant to the allegations.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, asserting that delay would prejudice both her and the parties’ child.

The court considered statutory protections under the Ontario Evidence Act, the Canada Evidence Act, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protect witnesses from self‑incrimination in subsequent proceedings.

Applying the discretionary principles governing adjournments and emphasizing the best interests of the child, the court held that an indefinite delay pending completion of criminal proceedings would not serve the child’s interests.

The request to adjourn the trial pending the criminal trial was therefore dismissed, though other potential adjournment issues were left to the trial management judge.

The insured's vehicle was damaged when her daughter, experiencing an acute psychotic episode, drove it across three lanes of traffic and into a tree.

The insurer denied coverage, arguing the daughter's actions were intentional.

The trial judge found the loss was 'accidental' as the daughter lacked conscious control of the vehicle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the insurer's appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding and further noting that the innocent insured owner was entitled to coverage regardless, as the event was unexpected from her perspective.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission not to refer his employment discrimination complaint to a tribunal.

The complaint alleged discrimination based on race and colour.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and found that the Commission reasonably concluded there was insufficient evidence to warrant a referral.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The respondent property owner initially sought retroactive reclassification of his property, but amended his application to seek a fairness hearing regarding his municipal taxes.

The application judge reduced the respondent's taxes owing to $3,000, relying on inherent and equitable jurisdiction.

The municipality appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Assessment Act and Municipal Act provide a comprehensive statutory mechanism for tax assessment and collection, and the application judge lacked jurisdiction to circumvent this framework to alter property classifications or reduce taxes.

The appellant insurer appealed an order granting partial summary judgment which declared that the respondent's action for disability benefits was commenced within the limitation period.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge erred in holding that a clear and unequivocal denial was necessary to trigger the limitation period.

Because discoverability issues were raised, there was a genuine issue for trial, and the matter should not have been determined on a motion for summary judgment.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Law Society Hearing Panel decision that revoked his licence for practising while suspended.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application because the applicant had not exhausted his statutory right to appeal to the Appeal Panel.

The Court also noted that the application lacked merit, as the Hearing Panel's decision was reasonable.