Family and Matrimonial Law - ODC

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his request to retroactively terminate child support for his adult son and order repayment of $8,533.

The motion judge found the son remained entitled to support due to intellectual issues, including Autism Spectrum Disorder, which impeded his ability to become self-supporting.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's assessment of the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant passed away after perfecting an appeal of a final order arising from a binding judicial dispute resolution hearing.

Due to the appellant's death, the proceeding was automatically stayed.

Appellant's counsel brought a motion to be removed from the record as he could not obtain instructions from an authorized estate representative.

The Divisional Court adjourned the appeal, ordered the proceeding to continue against the appellant's estate pursuant to rule 10.02, required the respondent to provide a status update within 90 days, and granted counsel's motion to be removed from the record.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision striking out his negligence claim against the Family Responsibility Office (FRO).

The appellant alleged that FRO was negligent in handling his child support payments and reporting him to a credit bureau, arguing FRO owed him a duty to reply to his correspondence.

The Divisional Court upheld the Deputy Judge's finding that FRO did not owe a duty of care to the appellant, applying the Cooper v. Hobart framework.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order finding him in contempt of a final parenting order.

The motion judge had temporarily reduced the appellant's parenting time until he complied with the order, which the appellant argued was an impermissible variation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge had jurisdiction to make a temporary variation to facilitate compliance.

The court also upheld the contempt findings regarding unilateral medical decisions and withholding the children, and rejected the appellant's claims of procedural unfairness.

Following a successful application for judicial review that set aside a Children's Aid Society decision due to procedural unfairness, the Society sought directions on whether it was required to conduct a fresh investigation.

The Divisional Court clarified that the Society is not obliged to commence a new investigation, but if it chooses to do so, it should be conducted by another agency with appropriate procedural safeguards.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a prior order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs and vacated the partial interim stay order that had been previously granted.

The applicant, a Roman Catholic priest, sought judicial review of a Children's Aid Society decision 'coding' him as a risk of sexual and emotional harm to children following allegations from female students regarding discussions during confession.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the CAS breached mandatory procedural requirements set out in the Ontario Child Protection Standards by making the verification decision before examining the scene, immediately after interviewing the applicant, and without a proper verification conference.

The decision was set aside and a fresh investigation by a different CAS was ordered.

The respondent in a family law appeal brought a motion for security for costs against the appellant.

The court determined that the Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than the Family Law Rules, governed the motion.

Applying Rule 61.06(1), the court found that the appellant resided outside Ontario, had unpaid costs awards, and likely had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The court ordered the appellant to pay $68,631.32 in outstanding costs and post $25,000 as security for the appeal costs, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order for the partition and sale of a home jointly owned with her elderly mother.

The appellant argued the mother had gifted her interest in the home and that the order was interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court held that an order for sale under the Partition Act is a final order, meaning no leave was required.

On the merits, the court found no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's conclusion that the mother retained an interest in the property and that the sale was not oppressive.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant father appealed a summary judgment order placing his twin children in extended society care.

The children, who are of First Nations heritage, had been in the care of the society since birth.

The appellant failed to meaningfully participate in the appeal hearing.

The Divisional Court reviewed the motion judge's findings regarding the lack of a genuine issue for trial, the best interests of the children regarding access, the absence of viable kinship placements, and the adequate consideration of the children's Indigenous heritage.

Finding no palpable and overriding error or error of law, the court dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed an order refusing his motion to change a final order regarding child support arrears.

At the commencement of the appeal hearing, the self-represented respondent requested an adjournment to retain new counsel.

The appellant consented to the adjournment, noting that the parties were involved in another family law proceeding and a global mediation might resolve all issues.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment sine die to allow the parties an opportunity to seek a global resolution.

The appellant appealed an order granting interim without prejudice spousal support as a term of adjourning a settlement conference.

The appellant argued the judge lacked authority under Rule 17(8) of the Family Law Rules to make a substantive support order without a motion or sworn income evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the judge had broad discretion to impose terms on an adjournment, particularly given the appellant's failure to provide financial disclosure and his delay tactics.

The mother brought a motion for a stay of an order varying an interim parenting schedule pending her motion for leave to appeal.

The motion judge had varied the schedule to increase the father's parenting time based on observations from a Section 30 assessment report.

The Divisional Court applied the three-part test for a stay and found that the mother failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried, as the motion judge's discretionary decision was well-founded and did not conflict with established case law.

The court also found no irreparable harm to the child and that the balance of convenience favoured the new schedule.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision enforcing a settlement between the parties.

He argued the motion judge erred by ignoring an alleged fraud against a third party, a payment issue, and the respondent's early departure from the home.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly exercised her discretion, properly credited the appellant for payments made, and correctly interpreted the settlement terms regarding the home.

The court also found the motion judge's reasons were adequate.

The minor appellant brought an application seeking child support from her biological father.

The motion judge held that the appellant was required to have a litigation guardian under Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding the Family Law Rules did not adequately cover the situation.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the Family Law Rules do adequately cover the situation, specifically exempting a child in a child support case from the definition of a 'special party'.

The appeal was allowed, and the order requiring a litigation guardian was set aside.

The father brought a motion for leave to appeal and to stay an ex parte interim order that granted the mother sole custody and restricted the father to one hour of supervised access per week.

The parties had previously shared custody equally.

The motions judge had made the order without fully reviewing the father's responding materials, concluding the father was mentally unbalanced based on select emails.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the order due to procedural unfairness and the drastic change to the status quo without a finding of material change.

The court also granted a stay pending appeal, reinstating the previous shared parenting schedule in the best interests of the children.

The moving party appealed a joint custody order to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, noting that jurisdiction lies with the Court of Appeal under s. 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court declined to transfer the appeal to the Court of Appeal under s. 110, finding little apparent merit to the appeal based on the deferential standard of review for custody orders.

Furthermore, the court noted that both parties sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding post-trial events, making a variation application based on a material change in circumstances a more appropriate remedy than an appeal.

The respondent husband sought leave to appeal a temporary order requiring him to pay $2,700 per month in child and spousal support based on an imputed income of $60,000.

The husband argued the support amounts significantly exceeded the Child Support Guidelines and Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines for that income level, and that the motion judge improperly relied on previous 'without prejudice' consent orders.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the order and that the issues were of sufficient importance.

The court also granted a partial stay, reducing the ongoing support obligations pending the appeal, provided the husband paid the arrears.

The appellant brought a motion to adjourn the appeal in order to obtain a transcript of a trial management conference.

The Divisional Court denied the motion, noting that a court reporter is only present at such conferences when a litigant is unrepresented, and a transcript cannot be ordered without the conference judge's permission.

The court held that granting an adjournment based on the mere hope of obtaining permission made no sense.

Furthermore, the relevant rule only contemplates transcripts of oral evidence, which was not given at the conference.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judgment granting Crown wardship of her 8-year-old child without access, with a view to adoption.

The child had been in the temporary care of the respondent society due to the mother's psychiatric problems and the child's own needs.

Expert psychiatric evidence at trial strongly recommended against continued access, emphasizing the child's need for stability and permanency through adoption.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error or error of law in the trial judge's decision to terminate access.

The appeal was dismissed.