Family and Matrimonial Law - OCA

The appellant father appealed a child support order where the trial judge imputed income based on inferences drawn from his lifestyle and the quantum of voluntary monthly support payments he had made.

The first-level appeal judge upheld the decision, using a gross-up of expenses to verify the imputed amount.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the second-level appeal, finding no reviewable error in imputing income where the payor failed to disclose his true income, and deferred to the lower courts' discretion on the quantum.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a trial judge's costs order made in favour of his former spouse.

The trial judge had ordered costs to be paid from funds held in court, noting the moving party's failure to meaningfully participate in the trial and the partial success of the responding party.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no strong grounds to interfere with the trial judge's discretionary costs order.

The appellant appealed a finding of contempt for failing to comply with a consent order requiring the parties to enroll their children in counselling to facilitate effective co-parenting.

The motion judge found beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant wilfully obstructed the counselling process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings or interpretation of the order.

The appellant appealed a trial decision upholding the validity of a marriage contract that waived property and spousal support rights, and awarding a $40,000 lump sum for spousal support.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the marriage contract was valid, noting the appellant chose not to obtain independent legal advice despite being warned by a paralegal.

However, the Court found the trial judge erred in calculating the quantum of spousal support by failing to consider imputing income to the respondent from his $5 million real estate holdings.

The appeal was allowed in part and the matter remitted to the Superior Court for a focused hearing on imputing income.

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

The respondent was awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $50,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following a successful appeal of a summary judgment order, a dispute arose regarding the settling of the court's order on costs.

The respondents argued that a portion of the motion judge's costs order related to a support motion should remain intact.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the appellant that the motion judge had awarded a global amount for all motions, which were intertwined.

The court clarified that the entire costs award below was set aside and reserved to the trial judge.

The appellant mother took her three children from Kuwait to Canada without the respondent father's consent and claimed refugee status, alleging domestic violence.

The father applied for the children's return to Kuwait.

The application judge ordered the children returned, finding no risk of serious harm under s. 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the application judge erred by rejecting uncontradicted expert evidence that the children's fears of their father were independent and not influenced by the mother.

The Court also held that ordering the children's return before their refugee claims were determined violated the principle of non-refoulement.

The appeal was allowed and a custody hearing was ordered in Ontario.

The parties entered into a prenuptial agreement waiving spousal support and property rights.

After separation, the appellant husband sought equalization and spousal support, and requested the marriage contract be set aside under the Family Law Act.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the respondent wife, finding the request to set aside the contract was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period in the Limitations Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a request to set aside a marriage contract is a proceeding for a declaration where no consequential relief is sought, and is therefore not subject to a limitation period under s. 16(1)(a) of the Limitations Act.

The underlying claims for equalization and support remain subject to their respective limitation periods.

The appellant father appealed a trial decision granting sole custody of the child to the respondent mother, ordering him to pay child and spousal support, and awarding trial costs to the respondent.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in failing to determine an exact separation date, in awarding spousal support given his high student debt, and in not ordering parallel custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the best interests of the child framework or the spousal support guidelines, and noting the trial judge appropriately considered the appellant's debt and the history of intimate partner violence.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's order granting sole custody of their daughter to the respondent father, ordering her to pay child support, equalization, and full recovery costs of $249,765.47.

The appellant argued that the trial process denied her natural justice, the credibility assessment was flawed, and the trial judge erred in determining income and post-separation adjustments.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's credibility assessment, her focus on the child's best interests, or her financial determinations.

Leave to appeal the costs award was also denied, as the trial judge properly exercised her discretion based on the appellant's bad faith conduct.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to vary child support, arguing the motion judge erred in attributing income based on bank deposits, failing to deduct vacation time, requiring life insurance, and ignoring an equalization debt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge properly relied on the appellant's financial records to establish income, the life insurance was a pre-existing obligation, and the equalization issue was res judicata.

Following an appeal where the appellant had mixed success on a summary judgment motion and was unsuccessful on a contempt motion, the court determined the appropriate costs awards.

The court reduced the costs awarded to the respondents on the summary judgment motion from $35,000 to $10,000 due to the appellant's partial success.

The court also awarded the respondents partial indemnity costs of $3,500 for the contempt appeal and $1,500 for the summary judgment appeal.

The appellant mother sought continued access to her two-year-old child who was placed in the extended care of the respondent children's aid society.

The trial judge granted access at the society's discretion, applying a broad best interests analysis under the new Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA).

The appeal judge overturned this decision, applying the restrictive test from the predecessor legislation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the mother's appeal and restored the trial judge's order, holding that the CYFSA fundamentally changed the access test to a holistic best interests analysis, which properly includes consideration of future benefits such as access to medical information.

The appellant appealed an order striking his answer and amended answer in a family law proceeding due to his ongoing failure to comply with court orders regarding costs, household expenses, and financial disclosure.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding the appellant's non-compliance to be wilful and egregious.

The court emphasized that striking pleadings is an exceptional remedy but was justified here given the appellant's repeated disregard for his fundamental obligations.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following an appeal with divided success regarding an equalization payment and pension valuation, the parties could not agree on costs.

The Court of Appeal determined that the respondent was the more successful party.

The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's appeal costs fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The issue of trial costs was referred back to the trial judge.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision determining the parties' date of separation for the purpose of property equalization.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to properly assess credibility, made palpable and overriding errors of fact, and demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments were clear, the alleged factual errors were minor and not overriding, and the bias allegation was completely unfounded.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for a declaration that he owned a two-thirds share of a property.

The property was originally owned by his mother-in-law, who transferred it to herself and her daughter (the appellant's late wife) as joint tenants.

The appellant argued the property was a matrimonial home and the joint tenancy was severed upon his wife's death.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the transfer raised a presumption of resulting trust which was not rebutted.

Because the daughter held the property on resulting trust, she did not have an interest in the property under the Family Law Act, precluding it from being a matrimonial home.

The self-represented applicant moved to set aside a previous decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing his family law appeal, seeking a new hearing under Rules 37.14 and 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that Rule 37.14 had no application and that the authority to reconsider a decision under Rule 59.06 is exercised sparingly.

The applicant's arguments amounted to mere disagreement with the correctness of the appeal decision.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that the proper route to contest the decision was to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The parties cohabited for over thirteen years and jointly operated motel properties.

Following their separation, the trial judge awarded the respondent a half interest in the properties based on a joint family venture and unjust enrichment, as well as compensation for unaccounted joint account withdrawals.

The appellant appealed, arguing the properties were held on a resulting trust and disputing the financial contributions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence supported the trial judge's conclusions regarding the joint family venture, equal contributions, and the accounting of joint funds.

The parties separated after a seven-year unmarried relationship.

The trial judge found the respondent had established an unjust enrichment claim regarding the home owned by the appellant, concluding there was a joint family venture, and awarded him $86,500.

The appellant appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in dismissing her retroactive child support claim and in finding a joint family venture.

The child support ground was abandoned during the hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the constructive trust claim, finding the trial judge's conclusions on unjust enrichment, joint family venture, and the proportionate damages award were supported by the evidence.