Family and Matrimonial Law - OCA

An appeal from a trial judge's order setting aside a separation agreement under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act and section 15.2 of the Divorce Act.

The trial judge had set aside the agreement in its entirety and recalculated spousal support.

The appellate court found that while the trial judge erred in setting aside the entire agreement under section 56(4), the spousal support terms did not comply with the objectives of the Divorce Act under the Miglin analysis.

The court allowed the appeal in part, maintaining the separation agreement but modifying the spousal support provisions to remove the cohabitation clause and make support indefinite, while preserving the original quantum of $28,800 annually.

This is the third appeal brought by the respondent in a family law proceeding concerning equalization payments and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The appellant sought to appeal an order of eviction from the matrimonial home and a power of sale granted by the trial judge due to the appellant's intransigence in the sale process.

The appellant also appealed a costs award of $36,000.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the eviction and power of sale order as an abuse of process, noting it was an attempt to circumvent two previous appeals that had been dismissed for delay.

The appeal was also found to be moot as the matrimonial home had already been sold.

The costs appeal was dismissed as the trial judge committed no reviewable error in awarding substantial indemnity costs based on the appellant's unreasonable conduct.

This is an appeal from a family law judgment where the trial judge dismissed the appellant's claims for equalization of net family properties, a declaration of trust over the matrimonial home, and spousal support.

The trial judge granted the respondent exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, an unequal division of net family properties (resulting in no equalization payment), and $75,000 in damages for physical and psychological abuse, among other relief.

The appellant raised multiple issues on appeal, including alleged errors in financial findings, domestic abuse allegations, and the validity of a prenuptial declaration, and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, declining to admit the fresh evidence and finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings, particularly due to the appellant's failure to provide a trial transcript.

The appellant, Jatinder Singh Dhillon, appealed a final order in family litigation, raising four grounds: a resulting trust claim, quantification of net family property, private school costs under s.7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, and "netting down" a lump sum retroactive spousal support award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, finding no legal or palpable and overriding factual error.

The court emphasized that judges are not required to make tax adjustments for retroactive spousal support awards unless specifically requested and that such adjustments are discretionary, especially where non-disclosure of income could lead to a windfall.

The appellant, Donavan Locke, appealed orders from the Superior Court of Justice dismissing his second and third actions (alleging deceit and conspiracy against his former common-law partner and her lawyers regarding a property transfer) and dismissing his own motions (including a constitutional question and criminal contempt).

The Court of Appeal found no errors in the motion judge's decision, affirming that summary judgment was appropriate due to the appellant's lack of evidence and damages.

The court also upheld the dismissal of the appellant's motions, noting the constitutional question was "ill conceived" and there was no basis for criminal contempt.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay costs to each respondent.

This is an appeal from a trial decision in a high-conflict matrimonial litigation case where the respondent's pleadings were struck due to willful non-compliance with disclosure orders.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's approach to evidence, refusal to recognize a constructive trust, spousal support determination, denial of a vesting order, and the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on all grounds, affirming the trial judge's discretion in probing evidence even in an uncontested trial, applying the net family property scheme, and exercising discretion regarding support, vesting orders, and costs.

The court also reaffirmed the principle that a party in willful default of court orders may be denied audience on appeal.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding spousal support, child support, net family property, and costs.

He argued the trial judge erred in imputing income to him and under-attributing income to the respondent.

The respondent conceded minor calculation errors regarding her 2017 income and the equalization payment.

The Court of Appeal corrected the conceded errors but otherwise dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments, income imputations, and costs award were entitled to deference and revealed no errors in principle.

Appeal from a Superior Court order on motions to change custody, residency, and child support.

The father appealed the trial judge's dismissal of his motion to change the child's primary residence from the mother's home in Owen Sound to his apartment in Toronto, and to grant him final decision-making authority.

The father also challenged the retroactive child support award dating to January 2012.

The appellate court upheld the finding of no material change in circumstances regarding custody and residency, but allowed the appeal in part regarding child support, varying the retroactive date to June 3, 2014 (the date of the motion to change) and correcting the set-off calculation to reflect only 50% of the outstanding costs award.

The appellant, a father in child protection proceedings, appealed a Superior Court decision that upheld an Ontario Court of Justice order varying his access to children from unsupervised to supervised pending trial.

The Court of Appeal found that the Superior Court order was interlocutory in nature, dealing with interim access pending trial, and therefore the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The court declined to transfer the matter to the Divisional Court, finding that section 19(4) of the Courts of Justice Act precluded such an appeal.

The appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant moved for a stay of a motion judge's order regarding reintegration reconciliation counselling and the adjournment of her summary judgment motion.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to quash the appeal, arguing the underlying order was interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the respondent, finding that the issue of access remained to be determined at a future summary judgment motion.

The appeal was quashed and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The mother appealed a 2011 order finding her in contempt and a 2013 order reversing custody of the parties' three children to the father and limiting her access.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.

The contempt finding was set aside because the interim orders allegedly breached had been superseded by Minutes of Settlement.

The court found the trial judge erred in relying on the Child and Family Services Act and parens patriae jurisdiction, but upheld the decision to reverse custody based on the trial judge's finding of emotional abuse by the mother.

However, the court found the trial judge erred by not setting a fixed timeframe for an access review.

The court ordered a review of access arrangements and increased the mother's access in the interim.

Costs payable by the mother for the proceedings below were reduced from $400,000 to $200,000.

The appellant mother appealed a Superior Court decision that upheld a trial judge's order making her two children Crown wards without access.

The children had been in care since 2010.

The trial judge found the children would be at risk if returned to the mother due to her mental health, inability to care for them, and a toxic relationship.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle by the Superior Court judge and upheld the decision, noting the statutory timelines had passed and the children must be placed for adoption.

The appellant challenged a family law order concerning foreign property and child support.

The Court of Appeal held that the Family Law Act contemplates equalization of net family property rather than sale and division of individual assets, and there was no evidentiary basis for equitable relief concerning property located in China.

The court also held that the foreign property was not a matrimonial home because the parties were not ordinarily residing there on the date of separation.

The appeal from the child support findings failed, including the imputation of income and allowance of extraordinary expenses, although the parties were referred back to the trial judge to settle the amount already paid toward arrears.

The appellant mother appealed an order finding her in contempt for allegedly manipulating her 16-year-old daughter into refusing to attend a March break vacation with the respondent father.

The motion judge had ordered a temporary change in custody as a remedy.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the contempt finding, noting procedural errors, failure to consider all evidence, and an unreasonable conclusion on the record.

The Court also held that changing custodial arrangements is not an available remedy for contempt under Rule 31(5) of the Family Law Rules and cannot be used as punishment.

The appellant mother appealed an order dismissing her appeal for delay.

Her original appeal was from a summary judgment finding her child in need of protection.

The mother failed to perfect her appeal within the 14-day period mandated by Rule 38(22), mistakenly believing she needed a transcript of submissions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle by the status hearing judge, as the paramount consideration was the best interests of the child and the need for expeditious resolution of placement and access issues.

The appellant mother appealed a decision making her older child a Crown ward with no access.

She sought to introduce fresh evidence, arguing that the expert witness, Dr. Benoit, gave contradictory evidence in a subsequent trial regarding her younger child and lacked expertise on the effects of Cortisol.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the fresh evidence motion, noting the lack of expert evidence to support the appellant's claims.

The court upheld the trial judge's reliance on Dr. Benoit's parental capacity assessment and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the child's need for stability in a potential adoptive home.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment denying her spousal support following a 32-year marriage.

The trial judge found that after equalization, the appellant had a net worth of approximately $1.4 million and that the parties' ability to maintain their pre-divorce lifestyle had diminished due to the respondent's job loss, not the divorce.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the Divorce Act and his conclusion that spousal support was not warranted given the appellant's assets, earning capacity, and remarriage.

The motions judge ordered the Children's Lawyer to provide reasons for declining to prepare a further report in a custody and access dispute, and to show cause why it should not be found in contempt.

The Children's Lawyer appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that under the Courts of Justice Act, the Children's Lawyer has absolute discretion to decide whether to participate or provide a report.

Applying the Baker factors, the Court found no statutory or common law duty for the Children's Lawyer to provide reasons for its decision.

This document is a summary note regarding the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Contino v. Leonelli-Contino.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, establishing that a party seeking to deviate from the Federal Child Support Guidelines under the shared custody provisions of section 9 must establish on clear and compelling evidence that the deviation is in the child's best interests, and the court must consider all statutory factors without giving pre-eminence to any single factor.

The appellant appealed a trial decision finding he breached a contract by tricking the respondent into signing a Trust Deed and Power of Attorney after promising her one-half ownership of a home.

The appellant argued the agreement was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds as it was not in writing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Statute of Frauds did not apply because the Deed was in writing and there was part performance when the respondent took possession and spent money improving the home.