Family and Matrimonial Law - OCA

The appellant mother appealed a finding of contempt and the subsequent penalty imposed for her failure to comply with a final order regarding the respondent father's access to their children.

The motion judge found multiple, wilful breaches of the order, relying heavily on text messages where the appellant explicitly denied the court's authority over her parenting decisions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the contempt finding or the penalty, which included fines for failing to attend a cooperative parenting program.

The Court also dismissed the appellant's motion to adduce fresh evidence, noting it either could have been produced earlier or did not displace the motion judge's findings.

Following an appeal, the court issued a costs endorsement.

The respondent on appeal was awarded partial indemnity costs in the amount of $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

On appeal from a trial judgment ordering the sale of the matrimonial home, the appellant challenged the order on the grounds that the trial judge failed to consider the best interests of the parties' three children who had resided in the home since the 2012 separation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the trial judge properly considered the relevant criteria and the best interests of the children.

The respondent had a prima facie right to partition and sale, and the appellant failed to demonstrate malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct that would preclude the sale.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

Appeal of a motion judge's order granting sole custody to the father in a child custody dispute.

The mother had taken the 13-year-old son to India in 2013 under the guise of visiting her ill mother and did not return him despite a court order.

The motion judge found Ontario had jurisdiction based on the child's habitual residence and granted the father sole custody.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the father had attorned to the Indian courts by seeking a final custody order based on Indian law, and therefore Ontario should have declined jurisdiction.

The Court also found that the motion judge erred by making a final custody order without considering the best interests of the child factors required by statute.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action against the estate of their first cousin, Dr. Sherman, and others.

The appellants claimed that Dr. Sherman owed them an ad hoc fiduciary duty to look after their financial interests and that he breached this duty by failing to honour an option agreement that would have allowed them to acquire shares in the family businesses.

The motion judge dismissed the action on two grounds: first, that no genuine issue requiring trial existed regarding the fiduciary duty, and second, that the action constituted an abuse of process as it attempted to re-litigate issues already determined in a prior unsuccessful action against Royal Trust.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal.

The appellant husband appealed an interlocutory order requiring disclosure of income tax returns and a sworn financial statement in the context of a motion to set aside a 2015 separation agreement that capped his income for support calculations at $1 million per year and included a non-disclosure clause.

The respondent wife moved to quash the appeal, arguing the order was interlocutory and required leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was interlocutory because it did not finally determine the substantive issue of the separation agreement's enforceability, but rather was a procedural disclosure order.

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

The appellant father appealed an order of the Superior Court motion judge who struck his motion to change a trial judge's order for spousal and child support, and granted the Family Responsibility Office's motion for enforcement.

The trial judge had imputed annual income of $110,000 to the father and ordered him to pay ongoing spousal and child support for two daughters and an equalization payment.

The father had failed to comply with multiple court orders, owing over $60,000 in support arrears and over $50,000 in equalization payments.

The motion judge found the father had the means to pay but chose not to prioritize court-ordered payments.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretionary orders.

The appellant appealed from a trial judge's orders awarding the respondent ongoing spousal support of $25,000 per month in a 26-year marriage and costs of $250,000.

The appellant raised four grounds of appeal: (1) the trial judge erred by not explicitly providing for a review of spousal support upon retirement; (2) the trial judge erred in concluding the respondent had no beneficial interest in business shares transferred during the marriage; (3) contingent on ground two, the spousal support award was excessive; and (4) the trial judge's costs award was based on a purely mathematical approach.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's reasoning or conclusions.

The appellant mother requested an adjournment of her appeal regarding the Crown wardship of her son due to illness, missing transcripts, and a desire to obtain legal representation.

The respondent Society did not object.

The Court of Appeal granted a short adjournment on peremptory terms, directing the Society to expedite the transcripts and provide an update on the child's well-being.

The appellant appealed an order from a trial management conference judge who, on her own initiative, struck his pleadings on financial issues for failure to make disclosure.

The Court of Appeal allowed the unopposed appeal and set aside the order, finding procedural unfairness because there was no motion to strike before the judge and the parties were not given an opportunity to make submissions.

The appellant mother appealed a summary judgment order granting Crown wardship without access, arguing that the admission of hearsay, opinion, and business records evidence violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the Family Law Rules do not prohibit hearsay on summary judgment motions and the mother had consented to the protection finding without objecting to the evidence below.

The court found that admissible evidence and the mother's own admissions justified the disposition, as she had not presented an adequate plan for the care of the children, leaving no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The appellant brought a motion to transfer a family law appeal from the Court of Appeal to the Divisional Court.

The appeal was from an order made under section 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act at a Family Court branch.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the order was final and should be heard by the Court of Appeal.

The court applied the statutory provisions and precedent, concluding that appeals of such orders lie to the Divisional Court.

The motion was granted and the appeal was transferred.

The mother appealed an Ontario order enforcing a Georgia custody order that granted sole custody to the father.

Pending the appeal, the mother moved for third-party production of documents, and the father cross-moved for security for costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the mother's motion, finding the documents could have been requested earlier and would not meet the test for fresh evidence as they did not address the Georgia court's ability to protect the children.

The Court granted the father's motion for security for costs, finding the mother's appeal to be meritless and a waste of time, and ordered her to post $10,000.

The Director appealed an order striking a committal provision from a temporary default order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but confirmed that under s. 41(14) and 41(10) of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, a court has the power to make a temporary order for support payments that includes a term directing the imprisonment of the payor upon failure to comply.

The Court emphasized that this power should be exercised cautiously and outlined procedural fairness requirements for unrepresented payors facing potential committal.

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his Hague Convention application for the return of his child to the United States.

The mother had moved with the child from Florida to Ontario when the child was two and a half months old.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings that the child was not habitually resident in Florida, that the father was not actually exercising custody rights at the time of the move, and that the father subsequently acquiesced to the child remaining in Ontario.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant father appealed an order dismissing his appeal of a motion judge's order granting custody of their son to the respondent mother and ordering child support.

The appellant argued that the Charter applied due to the Office of the Children's Lawyer's refusal to become involved, that the custody request was moot, and that hearing fairness was compromised.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Charter does not apply to private custody disputes, the matter was not moot at the time of the lower court orders, and there was no evidence of unfairness.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed an order setting aside a final consent order that had resolved all issues in matrimonial litigation, including custody and access.

The respondent had moved to set aside the order on the basis that his solicitor did not consult him regarding the final document.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge lacked the necessary foundation to exercise the discretion to refuse to give effect to the settlement agreement.

The respondent's affidavit was feeble, he failed to adequately explain a 5.5-month delay, and the motion was served on short notice while the appellant was away.

The order was set aside without prejudice to the respondent renewing his motion on better material.

The mother brought a motion to vary a child support order, seeking increased contribution from the father for post-secondary education expenses for their two adult sons.

The sons had substantial capital assets from gifts.

The motion judge ordered the father to pay table support and a proportionate share of the education expenses, requiring the sons to contribute only from their summer earnings.

The father appealed, arguing the sons should use their capital assets first.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the motion judge erred in failing to consider the extent to which the children should be expected to contribute to their own education expenses out of their capital assets under s. 3(2)(b) and s. 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

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

Considering the circumstances, including offers to settle made by the appellant, the court awarded costs to the appellant in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment setting aside minutes of settlement and ordering him to pay spousal support.

The parties had signed a settlement in 1998 where the respondent wife accepted a lump sum and waived future support, believing the appellant was unemployed.

The trial judge found the appellant had failed to disclose substantial severance and contract income, taking advantage of the respondent's mental health vulnerability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding that the settlement was unconscionable and vitiated by the appellant's non-disclosure.