Family and Matrimonial Law - ODC

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 inclusive to the responding party.

The self-represented moving party brought a motion to review a case management judge's orders that required him to perfect his family law appeal and subsequently dismissed the appeal for his failure to do so.

During the case management of the review motion, the moving party repeatedly refused to follow court directions, sought sweeping substantive relief beyond the scope of the review, and engaged in relentless debates with the court.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and ultimately dismissed the review motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, while also restricting the moving party's future access to the Divisional Court.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order for the pre-trial sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home.

The appellant occupied the home and paid no child or spousal support, arguing that his payment of carrying costs on investment properties was sufficient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge properly exercised her discretion.

The court noted that the appellant's failure to pay support left him with unclean hands, and his claim of high carrying costs undermined his argument that the parties could afford to retain the home pending further litigation.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal to the Divisional Court from a final family law order dealing with parenting time, child support, and mobility.

The respondent objected, arguing the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction because the order was made under the federal Divorce Act, not provincial legislation.

The court agreed, finding that the trial judge's orders stemmed from the Divorce Act, meaning the appeal must be heard by the Court of Appeal pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act.

The appeal to the Divisional Court was quashed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal paragraph 2 of a temporary order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as the responding party failed to upload a costs outline.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his motion to set aside a default order regarding parenting and child support.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in applying the legal test to set aside a default judgment, specifically regarding the merits of his case and potential prejudice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in law or principle and concluding the motion judge properly considered the evidentiary record and all relevant factors, including the appellant's failure to genuinely engage in the proceedings.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claim to the proceeds of the sale of his brother and sister-in-law's matrimonial home.

The appellant claimed he advanced $700,000 for the down payment and held a beneficial interest via a trust declaration and oral agreement.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that there was no triable issue regarding the advanced funds, the oral trust violated the Statute of Frauds, and the written trust declaration was unconscionable and coerced from the respondent wife.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of Sharma J. dated February 7, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $3,500 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Rahman J. dated November 2, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion for leave to appeal, granted a stay pending the appeal, and ordered the hearing of the appeal to be expedited.

Costs of $5,000 were left to the discretion of the appeal panel.

The mother appealed a trial decision placing her two children in extended society care and ordering that access for the mother, older sister, and grandmother be at the discretion of the Children's Aid Society.

The Divisional Court upheld the extended society care order, dismissing the mother's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and other errors.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding access, finding that the trial judge erred in law by delegating the determination of the type, frequency, and duration of access entirely to the Society.

The matter of access was remitted to the trial judge.

The appellant appealed an order granting summary judgment and dismissing her claims for equalization of net family properties and spousal support under the Family Law Act.

The motions judge had found she was not a spouse due to a foreign annulment.

The Divisional Court determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the order dismissed an equalization claim and there was no indication the amount in dispute was $50,000 or less.

The court transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The self-represented applicant commenced proceedings in the Divisional Court seeking to 'dismiss the defence' of his opponents regarding an adoption denial by the Children's Aid Society and delays in a Small Claims Court action.

The court found it had no jurisdiction over most of the applicant's complaints, including transferring adoption decisions to Family Court or addressing criminal allegations.

The court directed the Registrar to give notice under Rule 2.1.01 that it is considering dismissing the application as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, except for the complaint regarding the Small Claims Court's failure to schedule a settlement conference, for which the applicant was ordered to provide further particulars.

The mother appealed a trial decision ordering joint custody, imputing the father's income for child support, and awarding costs to the father.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the joint custody order was a necessary and appropriate response to the mother's severe gatekeeping behaviour, which included unilateral decision-making and false allegations.

The court also upheld the trial judge's imputation of the father's income based on the available evidence, noting that neither party had provided a professional valuation at trial.

Leave to appeal the costs award was denied.

The appellant appealed a family law trial decision to the Divisional Court.

The trial judgment ordered periodic child support and spousal support payments that, in aggregate, exceeded $50,000 annually.

Although the parties agreed the Divisional Court had jurisdiction because only the spousal support (under $50,000) was being appealed, the court held that jurisdiction is determined by the total amount of periodic payments ordered in the judgment, not the amount in issue on appeal.

The appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeal.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order for child and spousal support, arguing the judge erred in allowing a late amendment to claim spousal support, imputing too little income to the respondent, and creating undue hardship.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error.

The trial judge properly exercised discretion in allowing the amendment, had an evidentiary basis for the imputed income given the respondent's mental health issues, and the undue hardship argument was not raised at trial and could be addressed at an upcoming review.

The appellant mother appealed a Crown wardship order.

At the hearing, a non-party requested to observe the proceedings.

The Divisional Court allowed the non-party to observe, finding the open court principle prevailed, subject to a strict publication ban under the Child and Family Services Act.

The court also granted the appellant's request for an adjournment to retain counsel or prepare, noting insufficient time remained to hear the appeal and fresh evidence motions that day.

The court seized itself of the matter and ordered the appellant to have no contact with the child pending the final determination.

The applicant sought costs of $61,486.11 on a full indemnity basis following the respondent's unsuccessful motion for a stay.

The respondent argued for no costs due to divided success.

The court found the applicant was entitled to costs as the successful party under rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, but declined to award full indemnity costs.

Finding the amount sought excessive for a non-complex motion, the court awarded costs fixed at $7,500 inclusive.

The applicant sought judicial review of an OMERS Appeal Sub-Committee decision that found the respondent was the common-law spouse of the deceased and entitled to his pension death benefits.

The applicant argued the tribunal breached procedural fairness and that its decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court held that while the tribunal's pre-hearing procedures were fair, its written reasons were too brief and conclusory to allow for meaningful review.

The court could not determine if the tribunal properly applied the legal test for common-law status or correctly placed the burden of proof.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant wife appealed an order directing the sale of the matrimonial home and a distribution of $75,000 of the proceeds to each party.

The wife argued the distribution order impaired her claim for an unequal division of the proceeds.

The Divisional Court found the motion judge erred by ordering a specific distribution without knowing the sale price, rather than holding back funds to cover the wife's claim.

The court varied the order to distribute $15,000 to the husband and $75,000 to the wife, with the balance held in trust pending trial.