Michael David Lannan

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision regarding the quantum and duration of spousal support, as well as the costs award.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to impute a higher income to the respondent based on her part-time earnings with tips and commissions, and by ordering support for five years without a reduction over time.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors of law, as the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and consistent with the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The applicant sought costs following a family law trial regarding the division of equity in the matrimonial home.

The court found the respondent's demand for immediate payment of his half-share unreasonable, as it would have forced the sale of the children's home.

Although the applicant did not serve an Offer to Settle and was legally aided, she was the substantially successful party.

The court awarded the applicant $22,500 in costs, to be set off against the respondent's share of the equity.

Following earlier proceedings between the parties in a family law matter, the court was asked to determine costs.

The respondent submitted that success in the proceeding was divided between the parties.

The court agreed that neither party achieved clear success.

Applying the principle that costs generally follow the event unless justice requires otherwise, the court held that no party should receive costs.

Following a family law trial involving custody, support, and equalization issues, the court determined costs that had been reserved from earlier interim motions.

The respondent/wife was largely successful at trial, obtaining sole custody of the children and greater child and spousal support than the applicant/husband had proposed.

Success was divided on the issue of equalization due to insufficient evidence regarding alleged property holdings.

The court discounted the costs claimed for the unsuccessful equalization litigation and awarded a reduced amount of costs.

Costs of $22,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes were ordered payable by the applicant/husband, enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.

The parties, who were never married, separated and entered into a separation agreement.

The applicant transferred his interest in their jointly owned home to the respondent.

The agreement stated that the payment of any equalization would not be determined until a future date.

The applicant later claimed an interest in the home based on the agreement, constructive trust, and resulting trust.

The court dismissed the property claims, finding the agreement provision was an unenforceable 'agreement to agree' and the trust claims were precluded by the agreement and the facts.

The court also determined retroactive and ongoing child support obligations based on changes in the children's living arrangements, including a shared custody arrangement for one child.

The applicant father sought joint custody and a name change for the parties' six-year-old daughter.

The respondent mother sought sole custody.

The parties were never married and separated before the child's birth.

The court found a history of poor communication, high conflict, and instability on the part of the father.

Applying the best interests of the child test and the principles regarding joint custody, the court concluded that joint custody was inappropriate.

The mother was awarded sole custody, the father was granted specified access, and the request for a name change was denied.

Following a motion concerning clarification of the nature of the relationship between the parties in a family law property dispute, the court invited written submissions on costs.

The responding party filed no submissions.

The moving party submitted that each party should bear their own costs as the motion was necessary to clarify the relationship before addressing property issues.

The court accepted the moving party’s position and ordered that there be no order as to costs.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a declaration that an Islamic Sharia marriage ceremony conducted in Ontario without a marriage licence or registration was not legally valid, and that the parties were merely common-law spouses.

The court considered whether the marriage could nevertheless be deemed valid under s. 31 of the Marriage Act where parties intended to comply with Ontario law but failed to meet formal statutory requirements.

Relying on appellate authority interpreting the statutory deeming provision, the court found that the parties acted in good faith, were not legally disqualified from marrying, cohabited as a married couple, and intended their ceremony to comply with the law governing marriages in Ontario.

The court held that the marriage was deemed valid and that the parties were spouses for purposes of equalization of net family property under the Family Law Act.

The appellant brought an appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The Court determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the right of appeal lay to the Divisional Court under section 19(1.2).

The appeal was quashed and the matter was transferred to the Divisional Court in Welland, with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a decision placing her children under Crown wardship without access, arguing that the hearing judge intervened improperly by extensively questioning witnesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that in child protection proceedings, the paramount consideration is the best interests of the child.

The hearing judge was justified in seeking further information to clarify unusual testimony, and the questioning did not reach the level of showing a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The mother appealed a trial judgment that ordered equal parenting time between the parents.

She argued the trial judge failed to properly consider the status quo and the best interests of the children under section 24(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were sufficient and properly addressed the statutory factors, noting that equal sharing was the goal from the outset.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding her jointly and severally liable for general damages and solely liable for exemplary damages arising from historical sexual assaults committed by her ex-husband against the respondent.

The trial judge found the appellant was present during the abuse, owed a fiduciary duty to the respondent, and failed to protect her.

The Court of Appeal upheld the findings of liability and general damages, but set aside the exemplary damages award, finding the trial judge failed to assess whether the general damages were insufficient to achieve the goals of punishment and deterrence.

The appellant father appealed an order granting retroactive child support and summary judgment enforcing a $24,000 equalization payment under a separation agreement.

The father argued his bankruptcy discharge released him from the equalization payment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the retroactive child support award, finding the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to disclose significant income increases.

However, the Court set aside the summary judgment regarding the equalization payment, finding a triable issue existed as to whether the payment was actually in the nature of support, which would survive bankruptcy under s. 178(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The father was ordered to pay child support in 1992.

In 2001, a motions judge reduced his ongoing child support obligations based on an imputed income of $9,000 due to his alcoholism and lack of earning capacity, and rescinded all outstanding arrears.

The mother appealed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the reduction in ongoing support but set aside the rescission of arrears, finding that a present inability to pay does not foreclose future capacity to pay.

The Court also held that the dismissal of a prior application to rescind arrears does not constitute an absolute bar to future rescission if there is a change in circumstances.