Family and Matrimonial Law - OCA

The moving party brought a motion to quash an appeal filed in the Court of Appeal, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction.

The responding party acknowledged the error and requested a transfer to the Divisional Court under section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash and declined to order a transfer, finding the proposed appeal lacked obvious merit and that further delay would prejudice the moving party given significant unpaid support and costs arrears.

In this matrimonial appeal, the respondent wife moved to stay the appellant husband's appeal pending payment of an equalization amount of $334,076.84 ordered by Nordheimer J.A. The appellant had failed to comply with the payment order despite the 60-day deadline having passed.

The motion judge found that the appellant had deliberately and wilfully ignored the court order, preferring to prioritize his Canadian business interests over his matrimonial obligations.

The motion judge granted the stay of the appeal and gave the respondent leave to move forthwith to quash or dismiss the appeal for non-compliance.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant husband appealed from a motion judge's order that struck his reply factum, rectified an overpayment of trust funds, and struck his pleadings for failure to comply with court orders.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on three grounds: the husband was denied the opportunity to respond fully to the wife's motion to strike; the motion judge overstated the wife's efforts to move the case to trial; and the motion judge failed to consider whether lesser remedies would suffice.

The court set aside the order striking the pleadings and substituted specific disclosure orders with consequences for non-compliance.

The appellant appealed a final family law order regarding the sale of the matrimonial home, child and spousal support, and section 7 expenses.

She argued the trial judge erred by refusing an adjournment, exhibiting bias, and making unconscionable substantive findings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's discretionary refusal of an adjournment or in her substantive findings, and rejecting the allegations of bias.

A minor transposition error regarding the proportionate sharing of section 7 expenses was corrected.

The appellant, a declared vexatious litigant, appealed a child support variation order that awarded lump sum child support to the respondent and dismissed his request for a retroactive reduction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lump sum award and the dismissal of the retroactive reduction, noting the appellant's failure to pay support voluntarily, lack of financial disclosure, and protracted litigation.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred in failing to consider the appellant's motion for leave to request access to the child.

The appeal was allowed only to permit the appellant to request leave to bring a motion for access, and was otherwise dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the fixed amount of $1,000, inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judgment awarding sole custody and sole decision-making of their child to the respondent father, with equal parenting time.

The appellant also challenged the trial judge's decision to credit the respondent for certain household expenses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application to admit fresh evidence and dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusions on custody and financial arrangements.

The appellant appealed a family law judgment, raising five issues including spousal support, a restraining order, the appointment of a trustee for a life insurance policy, trial costs, and alleged trial judge bias.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's determination of income or imputation of income to the appellant to encourage self-sufficiency under the Divorce Act.

The court declined to interfere with the discretionary orders regarding the restraining order, the trustee appointment, and costs.

While noting that the trial judge's language could have been more tempered, the court found no bias.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that granted a divorce and made orders regarding support and equalization of assets.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's awards of lump sum and retroactive spousal support, the transfer of a time share, and dismissed allegations of bias.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding errors in the calculation of 2008 child support (which should have been based on actual 2008 income rather than 2007 income), the use of a vesting order to satisfy a joint line of credit, and the inclusion of a post-valuation date tax refund in the appellant's net family property.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment granting sole custody of the children to the respondent.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by rejecting the expert evidence of Dr. Weinberger without explanation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's disposition and noting it could not retry the case.

The appellant appealed an order of the motion judge.

Based on uncontested fresh information indicating that the appellant had paid an outstanding costs order and provided an updated financial statement, albeit unacceptably late, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.

Paragraphs one and four of the motion judge's order were struck, with the balance remaining in effect.

No costs were awarded for the appeal.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment in a matrimonial dispute, arguing that the trial judge's conduct exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias and compromised trial fairness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's credibility findings were supported by the evidence and his comments fell far short of meeting the test for reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court also upheld the custody and access order, noting it was grounded in the specific needs and best interests of the children and consistent with the position of the Children's Lawyer.

The appellant wife appealed an order directing an interim payment of $350,000 to the respondent husband.

The respondent brought a motion to quash the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge's order did not settle any substantive rights between the parties and was therefore interlocutory in nature.

As a result, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and the appeal was quashed.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order for indefinite supervised access to the children of the marriage, arguing it made obtaining future unsupervised access practically and legally impossible.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's exceptional order was supported by evidence of the appellant's attempts to manipulate the children and subject them to repeated professional assessments.

The Court noted the order does not preclude the appellant from seeking to vary the terms of access in the future upon proof of a material change in circumstances.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to terminate child support and rescind or reduce arrears fixed at $39,782.72.

The appellant argued the application judge erred in interpreting section 17 of the Divorce Act and failed to weigh his health problems and competing obligations.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting the appellant's long-standing failure to pay support, his ability to work despite health issues, and his complete lack of contact with the child.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed an order varying his child and spousal support obligations, arguing the reduction should have been greater and retroactive to the date of the application.

He also challenged the determination of his income, the removal of a clause reducing spousal support based on the respondent's income, and the exclusion of orthodontic expenses from a settlement of arrears.

The Court of Appeal dismissed most grounds of appeal, finding no error in the application judge's income determination, removal of the support reduction clause, or effective date of the variation.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the settlement of 'all arrearages' included the $10,360 in orthodontic expenses.

The appellant appealed an order finding her in contempt of three court orders regarding the respondent's access to their infant child.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a finding of contempt could not be made beyond a reasonable doubt without the trial of an issue, given the significant conflicting evidence and the fact that access had been properly provided in the four weeks prior to the hearing.

The appellant wife appealed an order regarding a default divorce judgment.

The Court of Appeal found the motions judge erred in concluding the appellant could seek originating corollary relief despite a final divorce judgment addressing those issues.

The Court applied the three-part test for setting aside the noting of pleadings closed, finding the motion was timely, the appellant had a persistent intention to defend, and there was merit to her claims.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the noting of pleadings closed and specific paragraphs of the default divorce judgment.

Following the release of the main appellate reasons on December 24, 2002, the Court of Appeal issued an addendum granting the costs of the appeal to the appellant, fixed in the amount of $6,000.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his application to vary support.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in rejecting the appellant's medical evidence, which indicated he was unable to work full-time.

Given the conflicting evidence regarding the appellant's ability to work, the motion judge should have ordered the trial of an issue.

The appeal was allowed, the order set aside, and the trial of an issue ordered.