Family and Matrimonial Law - OCA

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 appellant appealed a trial decision that rejected his undocumented claim to a half-interest in a residential property.

The trial judge had found the appellant's evidence incredible and accepted the respondent's evidence that a $130,000 payment was a gift.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and credibility assessments.

The court also upheld the trial judge's decisions regarding a breach of trust claim, an order for the appellant to pay $3,000 for property damage, and a no-costs award at trial.

The cross-appeal was abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an extension of time to appeal an order directing the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant filed the motion 11 months late, initially filing in the wrong court.

Applying the five-factor test for extending time to appeal, the court found the delay was lengthy, the explanation unpersuasive, and the proposed appeal devoid of merit as the record clearly showed the applicant had consented to the sale.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding equalization, spousal support, and vesting orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's rejection of an alleged debt to the appellant's brother or the imputation of income for spousal support.

The Court upheld the vesting of two condominiums in the respondent as security for the equalization and support owed, and provided directions for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The appellant wife appealed an order granting her an equalization payment of $60,000 following a short marriage with less than five years of cohabitation.

She argued the motion judge erred by not adopting a mathematical formula for unequal division and by misstating her alternative position.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge was not required to use a mathematical formula and properly applied s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act to determine that equal division would be unconscionable based on the parties' respective contributions.

The moving party sought an extension of time to appeal two orders in a high-conflict matrimonial proceeding: an order striking his pleadings for failure to pay costs, and a subsequent final order from an uncontested trial.

The moving party argued that as a self-represented litigant, he did not understand the implications of the order striking his pleadings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party had a lawyer present when the consequences were discussed, failed to move promptly after learning of the final order, and failed to demonstrate that the final order resulted in any real injustice or substantive errors.

Following an appeal decision regarding child and spousal support, the parties were directed to submit joint calculations of arrears.

As the parties failed to agree and submitted separate calculations, the Court of Appeal reviewed the submissions and adopted the appellant's calculations, fixing the total spousal and child support arrears owing by the respondent at $277,853.81 as of December 31, 2013.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's order granting joint custody of their three-year-old son in the form of a parallel parenting arrangement.

She argued that joint custody was inappropriate given the parties' inability to communicate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's decision reasonable and necessary to preserve the respondent father's relationship with his son, especially given findings that the mother overstated her fear and refused to cooperate.

The appellant mother appealed the dismissal of her appeal from a Crown wardship order regarding three of her children.

She argued the children should be placed with their maternal grandmother, that she received inadequate representation at trial, and that the respondent society failed to investigate the grandmother as a placement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit to the inadequate representation claim and agreeing with the trial judge's concerns about the grandmother's suitability given her own child protection history.

The mother appealed orders granting sole custody to the father, terminating his support obligations, and requiring her to pay child support.

The motion judge had made these orders after finding the mother in contempt for failing to return the children to Ontario from Alberta, and had prohibited the mother from participating in the hearing.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by deciding custody without a full evidentiary record, failing to consider the children's best interests (including the father's history of domestic violence), improperly delegating access decisions to the father, and varying support without adequate evidence or consideration of statutory factors.

The orders were set aside and a new hearing was ordered.

The moving party sought to stay a final divorce order while remaining in contempt of multiple Ontario court orders requiring her to return the parties' child from Poland to Canada.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to prohibit the moving party from proceeding until her contempt was purged.

The Court of Appeal granted the cross-motion, exercising its discretion to refuse to hear the moving party's request for a stay because doing so while she remained in contempt of closely connected child custody orders would be manifestly unjust and an abuse of process.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's dismissal of his request to set aside a separation agreement.

The trial judge had rejected the appellant's arguments regarding hidden assets, joint debts, pressure to sign, and the date of separation.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact or law and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant estate appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claim against the respondent for occupation rent and nursing care expenses.

The estate alleged the respondent unlawfully refused to allow the deceased to return to the matrimonial home after a hospitalization.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no evidence of an unlawful refusal; rather, the respondent, due to her own advanced age and frail health, was simply unable to provide the necessary care.

Furthermore, the claim for medical expenses was barred by the parties' marriage contract.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment ordering him to pay retroactive and periodic child support.

The monetary amounts fell within the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court under s. 19(1.2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Because the appellant brought the matter to the wrong court and had disregarded the existing support and costs orders, the Court of Appeal declined to transfer the matter and quashed the appeal.

The appellant, a former estate trustee, appealed a summary judgment granted in a mortgage action against the estate.

The appellant argued the mortgage should be set aside under the Family Law Act as the property was a matrimonial home.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant lacked standing as he was no longer an estate trustee and was not sued in his personal capacity.

Furthermore, the court upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant failed to prove the mortgagee had actual or constructive notice that the mortgagor was a spouse and the property was a matrimonial home.

The parties cohabited for eight years.

At trial, the applicant was awarded time-limited spousal support and a $100,000 equitable trust interest in the respondent's home.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal varied the spousal support to an indeterminate duration, noting the applicant's age and disability.

The Court upheld the $100,000 trust interest, rejecting the applicant's new argument for a joint family venture, but granted pre-judgment interest and a charge on the property as security.

The respondent's cross-appeal regarding support quantum, costs, and financial reconciliation was dismissed.

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his motion to stay Ontario family law proceedings regarding custody of the parties' child.

The mother had moved from Indiana to Ontario while pregnant, and the child was born in Ontario.

The Indiana court had previously granted the father custody of the unborn child.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that Ontario had jurisdiction under s. 22 of the Children's Law Reform Act, as the child was physically present in Ontario, substantial evidence was available there, and the balance of convenience favoured Ontario.

The appeal was dismissed.

The parties separated after a 16-year marriage.

The respondent was originally ordered to pay $800 per month in spousal support, an amount reduced due to high child support obligations.

After the children became adults, the respondent successfully moved to terminate child support, and the motion judge continued spousal support at $800 per month.

The appellant appealed, seeking an increase.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in assessing the appellant's need, denying compensatory support, and failing to apply the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Spousal support was increased to $2,720 per month.

The appellants appealed a decision ordering Crown wardship with access to the maternal grandmother for two Aboriginal children.

The children had been apprehended and placed with a non-Aboriginal foster family for several years.

The appellants argued the trial judge failed to give sufficient weight to the children's First Nations status.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while Aboriginal heritage is an important consideration under the Child and Family Services Act, it does not override the paramount consideration of the children's best interests.

The court upheld the finding that removing the children from their established foster family would be damaging, and that their cultural connection could be maintained through access visits.

The deceased promised to bequeath his farm and cottage to his common-law wife's grandsons in exchange for their unpaid labour.

He later married the appellant, who claimed dependant's relief against the estate.

The trial judge ordered the properties conveyed to the grandsons and awarded the widow support based on an inflated estate value, refusing to consolidate the proceedings.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, holding that the promise was to bequeath, not convey, meaning the properties remained in the estate and were subject to the widow's dependant's relief claim under s. 71 of the Succession Law Reform Act to the extent their value exceeded the grandsons' consideration.

The matter was remitted for a new trial on the dependant's relief claim.