Family and Matrimonial Law - OCA

This appeal arose from a family law dispute concerning spousal support and costs.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's refusal to impute a higher income to the respondent, the quantum of spousal support awarded at the high-end of the guidelines, and the award of full recovery costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding income imputation or her legal conclusions on spousal support and costs.

The court affirmed the trial judge's discretion and the high threshold for appellate intervention on factual matters.

The respondent was largely successful in defending her former husband's appeal and pursuing her cross-appeal.

She sought full recovery costs of $40,422.60.

The Court of Appeal awarded her costs of $38,000, ordering that 25% of the award be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office as it was proportionate to the support-related issues at stake.

The appellant appealed an order settling amounts owing pursuant to a previous family law judgment, arguing errors in the calculation of post-judgment interest on an equalization payment and seeking credit for spousal support paid.

The respondent cross-appealed, arguing the motion judge erred by including spousal support in her income when calculating her retroactive child support obligations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, finding no error in the interest calculation.

The Court allowed the cross-appeal, holding that under the Child Support Guidelines, spousal support received must be deducted when calculating a payor's income for child support purposes.

The appellant's motion for leave to appeal costs was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision affirming a trial judge's order that denied him access to a child placed in extended society care.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the appellant had standing to appeal under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and concluded that determining the appeal on the merits was in the child's best interests.

The Court admitted fresh evidence regarding the child's wishes to be adopted without ongoing access by the appellant.

Finding no error in the courts below and prioritizing the child's best interests, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing her claim for support from the estate of her deceased spouse.

The appellant argued that a waiver of support clause in the marriage contract was contingent upon the matrimonial home being held in joint tenancy, and that when the home ceased to be so held, the waiver no longer applied.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's decision, finding that two amendments to the marriage contract made clear that the home would be held in tenancy in common with certain rights to the appellant upon the respondent's death, and that neither amendment detracted from the waiver provision.

The court deferred to the trial judge's contractual interpretation and found no clearly identifiable error in law or palpable and overriding factual error.

Appeal of a motion to change order concerning spousal support and a contempt motion.

The trial judge terminated spousal support for approximately two years and awarded support below the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAGs) range, relying on an unimplemented settlement agreement reached during trial.

The trial judge also dismissed a contempt motion regarding the cancellation of a required life insurance policy.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in principle by departing from the SSAGs without adequate justification and by using the negotiated settlement as a reference point.

The court also found the respondent in contempt for deliberately cancelling the life insurance policy without consent or court order.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to extend the time to bring a claim for equalization of net family property.

The parties separated in February 2005 after nearly 16 years of marriage.

In October 2007, the appellant signed a separation agreement waiving any right to equalization.

He sought equalization in January 2016, over 11 years after separation and 9 years after the separation agreement.

The parties had previously executed a marriage contract in 1989 that barred equalization claims.

The motion judge found no apparent grounds for relief and refused the extension based on the lengthy delay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding the motion judge properly applied the statutory test under the Family Law Act and that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The self-represented appellant appealed a final judgment in family law proceedings, arguing the trial judge erred by refusing her requests for an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, noting the trial judge confirmed the appellant was prepared to proceed at the outset and properly rejected a mid-trial adjournment request lacking medical documentation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The husband appealed the trial judge's equalization payment and spousal support orders, arguing errors in determining the matrimonial home, denying a tax liability deduction, and calculating support.

The wife cross-appealed the denial of pre-judgment interest, indexing, security for support, and compensatory support, as well as the treatment of mortgage payments on excluded property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's factual findings or exercise of discretion, though it amended a review clause on consent.

The appellant mother appealed an order made following a finding of contempt against her for failing to comply with a child access schedule.

The motion judge had ordered the appellant to purge her contempt by transferring 122 days of access to the respondent father over a two-year period.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the order, finding that the motion judge failed to adequately consider the best interests of the children when making such a substantial change to the custodial arrangements.

The matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.

The self-represented appellant father appealed a summary judgment order granting sole custody of the two teenaged children to the respondent mother, with access at the children's discretion.

The father argued the motion judge erred in hearing the summary judgment motion after the matter was set for trial, in applying the evidentiary burden, and in assessing the children's best interests.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly applied the summary judgment framework and properly considered the children's best interests, including their expressed wishes not to have court-ordered access with the father.

The appellant appealed an order confirming a previous order that struck his pleadings for failing to comply with multiple disclosure orders in a family law proceeding.

The Court of Appeal found no error by the motion judge, noting the appellant failed to provide evidence of compliance despite being given ample opportunity.

The appeal was dismissed, though the Court left open the possibility for the appellant to seek an indulgence to reopen pleadings if he demonstrates substantial compliance in the future.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order regarding spousal support and the dismissal of her civil claims for breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

She argued the trial judge erred in imputing income to both parties.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings on support.

The Court also upheld the dismissal of the civil claims, noting the contract issue had been previously determined and there was insufficient evidence for the emotional distress claim.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

This was a costs endorsement following a family law appeal.

The court held that success on the appeal was divided and ordered that each party bear their own costs of the appeal.

The court further declined to interfere with the trial judge's costs award, finding it reasonable and noting that the result of the appeal would have only a modest monetary impact on the trial decision.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding spousal support and an interest in a property registered in the respondent's name.

The trial judge found the parties separated before the property was acquired, it was never a matrimonial home, and rejected the appellant's claim of a $54,000 cash contribution.

The trial judge also found insufficient evidence to establish an entitlement to spousal support.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's findings and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The appellants, a former spouse and his brother, appealed orders refusing to set aside a previous order that granted child support and voided a property transfer between them.

The appellants argued they had not been properly served and that the original order was made ex parte.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding strong evidence that the appellants deliberately evaded service and failed to move promptly to set aside the order once they were aware of it.

The appellant father appealed a decision dismissing his motion for leave to bring a motion for access to his 12-year-old son.

The motion judge had refused leave solely because the father had not paid previously ordered costs.

The Court of Appeal held that it is an error in law to bar a parent from seeking access solely on the ground of unpaid costs without considering the amount, reasons for non-payment, and ability to pay.

The Court set aside the decision, granted the father leave to bring his access motion, and ordered interim unsupervised access, noting the troubling history of ex parte non-contact orders that lacked evidentiary foundation.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judgment that granted custody of her child to the respondent father and found her in contempt.

The trial judge had proceeded with the trial in the appellant's absence after she failed to attend a scheduled mini pre-trial, and refused her counsel's requests for an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge denied the appellant procedural fairness and the right to be heard.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered on the issues of custody and contempt, conditional on the appellant paying the respondent's costs thrown away.

The mother appealed a trial judgment granting joint custody of the children to the father and determining child support issues.

She argued the trial judge erred in awarding joint custody, failing to impute higher income to the father, and calculating section 7 expenses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's best interests analysis or financial determinations.

A motion to admit fresh evidence was also dismissed, as the trial judge had remained seized of the custody issue for one year and was better positioned to address new complaints.

The appellant appealed a judgment after his answer had been struck and he was barred from participating in the proceedings due to non-compliance with court orders.

He argued that the respondent's counsel breached a duty of candour and that the motion judge failed to test the merits of his struck answer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of the duty of candour and concluding that the motion judge properly considered the claim on the merits despite the struck pleadings.