Meghann P. Melito

The parties sought a determination of their respective incomes for child support purposes following a joint parenting arrangement.

The court held that a $20,000 general damages settlement received by the applicant from her former employer was income for child support purposes because she used the funds for living expenses.

For the respondent, a real estate agent, the court excluded RRSP withdrawals that were quickly re-deposited, but imputed income for commissions he voluntarily forewent when acting on real estate transactions for his new wife.

The court ordered straight set-off child support based on the determined incomes and awarded the respondent $5,000 in costs thrown away for parenting claims the applicant had advanced and later withdrawn.

This is a costs decision following a successful appeal by the mother in a family law matter involving the Hague Convention and refugee status.

The mother's appeal overturned the application judge's decision to return the child to the country of origin after Canada granted the child refugee status.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the mother as the wholly successful party, fixing costs at $50,000 for the application and $30,000 for the appeal, totalling $80,000, while reversing the application judge's award of $75,000 to the father.

A wrongfully retained child was ordered returned to her country of origin after Canada granted her refugee status.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred in failing to apply the rebuttable presumption against the return of a refugee child and in dismissing the child's objection to return.

The court held that when a child has been recognized as a Convention refugee by the Immigration and Refugee Board, a rebuttable presumption arises that there is a risk of persecution on return.

The application judge improperly questioned the refugee determination process and reweighed evidence without oral testimony or cross-examination.

Additionally, the child's clear and repeated objection to return, based on fear of violence by the father, was not given proper weight.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court for determination of parenting and decision-making authority under section 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

This decision addresses a high-conflict family law dispute involving the validity of a family trust, equalization of net family property, unjust enrichment, and support issues.

The court found the Simcoe Group Trust to be a sham, ordered its assets and debts included in the Respondent’s net family property, and granted the Applicant an unequal division of property and lump sum spousal support.

The ruling also addresses the parties’ incomes, child support, and the impact of the Respondent’s financial conduct on the outcome.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a motion for restrictions on access to the court file and decision in a Hague Convention child abduction appeal, where the child had been granted refugee status.

The appellant sought anonymization, a publication ban, and sealing of documents created under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The court reviewed the open court principle, the best interests of the child, and the test for discretionary limits on openness from Sherman Estate v. Donovan.

The court ordered anonymization, a publication ban, and sealing of IRPA documents, but declined to seal the entire file, balancing the child’s privacy and safety against the public interest in court openness.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as the responding party failed to provide a cost outline.

The applicant father brought a Hague Convention application for the return of the 12-year-old child to the Bahamas.

The respondent mother conceded the removal was wrongful but opposed the return based on exceptions under Articles 13(b), 13(2), and 20, alleging a history of domestic violence and a lack of state protection in the Bahamas.

During the proceedings, the mother and child were granted refugee status in Canada, creating a rebuttable presumption of risk.

The court found the father successfully rebutted the presumption, noting the Bahamas has adequate laws and agencies to protect victims of domestic violence.

The court also declined to exercise its discretion to refuse return based on the child's objections, finding the child had been influenced by the mother.

The application was granted and the child was ordered returned to the Bahamas.

This costs award follows the dismissal of a constitutional challenge to provisions of the Family Law Act and Divorce Act.

The court considered the parties' submissions on costs, the novelty and importance of the issues, and the proportionality of the costs sought.

The court declined to order full indemnity costs as requested by the respondent, instead awarding $25,000, finding this amount reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

Raha Mehralian brought a constitutional motion challenging section 29 of the Ontario Family Law Act and the judicial interpretation of section 4 of the federal Divorce Act under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

She argued that the exclusion of individuals subject to valid foreign divorces from seeking spousal support in Ontario constitutes discrimination based on marital status, sex, and religion.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding it to be an impermissible collateral attack on prior court rulings that recognized her Omani divorce and stayed her temporary support order.

The court also noted that the applicant's arguments went beyond her Notice of Constitutional Question and lacked a sufficient evidentiary basis.

The husband appealed a family law judgment made following an uncontested trial in which he did not participate due to his failure to comply with court orders regarding financial disclosure and pleadings.

The wife brought a motion to quash the appeal based on the husband's ongoing non-compliance with support and costs orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to quash, finding it more appropriate to hear the appeal on the merits.

However, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge did not err in proceeding with an uncontested trial given the husband's repeated breaches of court orders and failure to provide financial disclosure.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a family law trial.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing success on parenting issues and the applicant's unreasonable behaviour, including her failure to make settlement offers and unilateral relocation.

The applicant sought no costs, citing divided success and precarious financial circumstances.

The court found divided success but determined the respondent was more successful overall, particularly on the primary parenting issues.

Considering the applicant's unreasonable conduct and financial situation, the court awarded partial costs of $10,000 to the respondent, payable over time.

The respondent's request to prevent further litigation until costs were paid was denied, as was the request for costs to be enforceable by FRO.

The Respondent Father moved to vary a previous order to expand his parenting time with the child.

The Applicant Mother opposed, proposing a more restrictive expansion.

The court, considering the child's best interests and a s. 30 Assessment, granted a graduated expansion of the father's parenting time, including alternate weekends, midweek time, and extended summer holiday periods, while rejecting some of the father's specific requests regarding transitions and travel distance.

The court emphasized the importance of promoting the child's relationship with both parents despite high parental conflict.

The applicant sought joint decision-making and shared parenting, along with child and spousal support.

The respondent sought sole decision-making, primary residence, and child support from the applicant, with spousal support based on imputed income for the applicant.

The court found the parties had a high-conflict relationship and that the applicant's choices contributed to instability.

The court granted the respondent sole decision-making and primary residence, with the applicant having regular parenting time.

The court imputed income to the respondent for support purposes due to missed EI benefits but declined to impute income to the applicant due to her immigration status.

Spousal support was ordered payable by the respondent to the applicant, with arrears fixed, and the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) were adjusted due to the applicant's basic needs and immigration status.

This decision provides supplementary reasons for judgment following an uncontested trial in a family law matter.

The court addresses outstanding issues including child support arrears, spousal support, section 7 extraordinary expenses, pre-judgment interest on an equalization payment, life insurance to secure support obligations, compliance with a prior order for a family car, and establishing a consistent parenting schedule.

The court made specific orders on each of these financial and parenting issues.

The applicant sought an uncontested trial on parenting, support, section 7 expenses, division of property, and divorce.

The respondent failed to file an answer or comply with previous court orders.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making authority and primary residence for the children, imputed income to the respondent for child and spousal support, and ordered the respondent to be solely responsible for a joint line of credit and to pay full indemnity costs due to his bad faith conduct and non-participation.

The court declined to make a final equalization payment order due to insufficient financial disclosure from the respondent, requiring further information from the applicant to finalize certain financial orders.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention seeking the return of his two-year-old child from Ontario to Australia.

The respondent mother opposed the application, arguing the child's habitual residence was in Ontario and raising exceptions under Articles 13(a) and 13(b).

The court found that the child's habitual residence had become Ontario prior to the alleged wrongful retention, largely due to the parties' relocation plans and the father's abusive conduct and withdrawal of financial support.

Alternatively, the court found the father had acquiesced to the child remaining in Ontario.

The application was dismissed.

This appeal involved cross-appeals concerning the recognition of an Omani foreign divorce and the Superior Court's jurisdiction over parenting issues for the parties' child.

The Court of Appeal upheld the recognition of the Omani divorce, finding that the applicant had attorned to the Omani court's jurisdiction by voluntarily participating in the proceedings on the merits.

The court also upheld the Superior Court's finding that Ontario had jurisdiction over parenting matters, determining that the child was habitually resident in Ontario at the relevant time, and that the Omani divorce order did not oust this jurisdiction.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The Respondent, Andrew Lambden, brought a motion for an interim order requiring the Applicant, Yessica Pamela Cevallos, to pay $30,000 as security for costs of the litigation.

The court found that the Applicant habitually resides outside Ontario and has no assets in Ontario, satisfying the preliminary onus under Rule 24(13)(a) of the Family Law Rules.

The court expressed serious reservations about the merits of the Applicant's spousal support claim, specifically regarding whether the parties continuously cohabited in a conjugal relationship for the statutory three-year period, citing significant interruptions in their cohabitation and the nature of their financial arrangements.

The court also noted the Applicant's inconsistent financial disclosure and inappropriate threatening statements made to the Respondent.

Despite the Applicant's submission that the order would prevent her from continuing the proceeding, the court found she had the ability to raise funds.

The motion for security for costs was granted in the amount of $20,000.

The respondent husband brought a motion seeking an order to return their 5-month-old son to Oman, claiming it was the child's habitual residence.

The applicant wife opposed, asserting that Ontario was the child's habitual residence and thus the Ontario court had jurisdiction over parenting issues.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in Ontario under s. 22(1)(a) of the Children's Law Reform Act, and alternatively, that jurisdiction was established under s. 22(1)(b).

The respondent's motion was dismissed, and the applicant's cross-motion for jurisdiction was granted.

The Applicant sought an order for disclosure from and leave to question non-parties (the Respondent's son and accountant) regarding the Respondent's assets and income, particularly concerning a family trust (Simcoe Group Trust) which the Applicant suspected was used to shield wealth and decrease Net Family Property (NFP).

The Applicant argued this information was crucial for equalization and support issues and that the Respondent had been vague in his own disclosure.

The Respondent and non-parties opposed, asserting that substantial disclosure had already been provided.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion for non-party disclosure and questioning, finding that the Applicant had not met the objective test under Family Law Rules 19(11) and 20(5), which requires more than suspicion and emphasizes proportionality, privacy interests of non-parties, and avoiding fishing expeditions.

The court also dismissed the Applicant's request to remove the matter from the trial sittings, stressing the need for the long-standing family litigation to proceed to trial for finality.