Maureen Edwards

The applicant father sought temporary child support and section 7 expenses from the respondent mother.

The father requested an imputation of $300,000 annual income to the mother.

The mother sought an adjournment, which was denied, and failed to provide updated financial disclosure.

The court imputed an income of $185,000 per year to the mother based on past income, her budget, and an adverse inference from her lack of disclosure.

The mother was ordered to pay table child support of $1,551 per month and 38% of the child's section 7 expenses, on a temporary, without prejudice basis, with further financial disclosure ordered.

In a family law motion between separated spouses, the moving party sought relief after the other spouse admitted surreptitiously copying private emails, documents, and text messages from his computer and sharing some of that material with her legal team and accountant.

The court held that a forensic audit was necessary before admissibility and privilege issues could be properly determined, and applied the framework governing unauthorized access to privileged information.

An independent third-party solicitor, Heuristica Discovery Counsel LLP, was appointed to conduct an expanded eDiscovery review, with the spouse who copied the material ordered to pay the upfront costs subject to reapportionment at trial.

The court also granted a temporary restraining order preventing further dissemination of the surreptitiously obtained information and required disclosure of all recipients.

The appellant appealed an order directing the sale of a vacant property solely owned by the respondent, where the parties had previously cohabited.

The appellant argued the sale should be delayed until the validity of their cohabitation agreement, which contained a purchase option, was determined at trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the respondent should not be forced to pay significant monthly maintenance for an unused property, especially since the sale proceeds would be held in trust pending final resolution.

The applicant sought partial summary judgment to dismiss the respondent's claim to set aside a cohabitation agreement.

The respondent argued the agreement should be set aside due to unconscionability, undue influence, duress, and inadequate financial disclosure, stemming from alleged coercive control during their 18-year common law relationship.

The court found that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial, particularly concerning the credibility of the parties and the nature of their relationship, which could not be resolved on a paper record.

The applicant's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The applicant scheduled a motion as a 59-minute short motion, despite filing voluminous materials that clearly indicated it was a long motion.

The parties settled the motion before it was heard.

The court issued an endorsement reprimanding the practice of 'jumping the queue' by improperly scheduling long motions as short ones, noting it wastes scarce judicial resources and harms other litigants.

The court warned that future instances of this practice may result in costs consequences under the Family Law Rules.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal the March 19, 2020 order of Moore J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the defendant in the amount of $4,500.

The applicant father brought a motion for a custody and access assessment under s. 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act, arguing that the parties' relationship was high conflict and the child was manifesting stress.

The respondent mother opposed the motion.

The court applied the Glick criteria and found that the evidence did not support the need for an assessment, as there was no clinical diagnosis, the child was thriving, and the conflict was typical of parenting disputes.

The motion was dismissed, and the parties were ordered to exchange parenting plans.

The applicant sought interim child support for an adult child (S.H., age 24) with mental and physical health issues, ongoing university costs, counselling costs, and interim disbursements for legal and expert fees.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking a psychological assessment of S.H., disclosure, and an order to file cryptocurrency investment documents under seal or partially redacted due to security risks.

The court found S.H. was entitled to interim child support and some post-secondary education expenses.

It granted reduced interim disbursements to the applicant for legal and expert fees, to be treated as a loan.

The respondent's request for a psychological assessment of S.H. was adjourned to allow S.H. to obtain independent legal advice, and the request for cryptocurrency redaction was granted due to security concerns.

This is a costs decision arising from a custody and access appeal concerning three children.

The father's appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on all four grounds.

The court awarded the mother costs fixed at $25,000, representing 60-70% of her actual costs.

The decision addresses the presumption of costs in favour of successful parties in family law matters, the application of the Family Law Rules cost framework, and the impact of unreasonable conduct by both parties.

The court also addressed costs related to an unsuccessful appeal to the Divisional Court, declining to award costs for that stage due to the confusing nature of family law appeal routes in Ontario.

The appellant father appealed a custody and access order from the Superior Court of Justice concerning his three sons.

The motions judge granted summary judgment in favour of the respondent mother, awarding her sole custody of two of the three children and ordering that the father's access and communication with the children be at the children's discretion.

The father challenged the appropriateness of summary judgment, the weight given to the custody assessment, the best interests analysis, and alleged Charter violations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motions judge's decision to proceed by summary judgment, his consideration of the evidence, his analysis of the children's best interests, and his costs award.

The appellant father appealed a final custody and access order to the Divisional Court.

The panel raised the issue of jurisdiction, noting that the order was made in a proceeding where both parties sought a divorce.

Under section 27 of the Children's Law Reform Act, claims for custody and access are stayed in favour of the Divorce Act when a divorce is claimed.

Because the order was made under the Divorce Act, the appeal route lies to the Court of Appeal under section 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, not the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court found the father had a meritorious appeal regarding the termination of his access and transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiff condominium owner sought certification of a class action arising from allegedly defective balcony railings at a Toronto condominium complex.

After a railing detached and fell, engineering reports concluded the guard-rail assemblies did not comply with the applicable Ontario Building Code, requiring removal and replacement of all balcony railings and resulting in extended restrictions on balcony use.

The proposed class consisted of persons who owned, rented, or resided in units whose balconies were inaccessible during the remediation period.

The court held that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action in negligence and breach of contract, that an identifiable class and common issues existed, and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure with an adequate representative plaintiff.

Certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 was therefore granted.

The plaintiffs brought certification motions under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 relating to falling balcony glass panels from three condominium developments in Toronto.

Owners and residents alleged negligence, nuisance, and breach of contract against developers, builders, and related entities after balconies were sealed and glass panels replaced following safety concerns.

The defendants consented to certification subject to three caveats regarding class definition wording, certification of an aggregate damages issue, and the viability of a collateral contract claim against a developer.

The court certified the actions as class proceedings, rejecting the proposed change to the class definition and permitting the collateral contract claim to proceed as a common issue.

However, the court declined to certify a proposed aggregate damages issue due to appellate authority interpreting s. 24(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act as prohibiting random sampling of class members to determine damages.