Family and Matrimonial Law - ODC

The appellant father appealed a family law trial decision that granted primary residence and sole decision-making authority to the respondent mother.

The father argued he was denied natural justice because the trial judge refused further adjournments for health reasons and to retain counsel, and proceeded with the assistance of amicus curiae.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge went to great lengths to accommodate the father and ensure a fair trial.

The court also dismissed the father's motion to admit fresh evidence and upheld the trial judge's findings on the child's best interests and imputed income.

The appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal an interlocutory order regarding parenting time.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the required timeframe and an inadequate explanation for the delay.

The court also noted that granting the extension would prejudice the respondent and the child, especially with a trial scheduled in two months.

The appellant mother appealed a trial decision finding her three children in need of protection and placing them in extended Society care.

The trial judge also reduced the mother's access from weekly to bi-monthly.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the protection finding and disposition, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the risks and the mother's plan.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding access, finding the trial judge erred in law by failing to give full effect to section 17 of the federal Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis Children, Youth and Families, which requires promoting ties to family for Indigenous children.

The access issue was remitted to the trial judge for reconsideration.

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his contempt motion against the respondent mother for failing to comply with court-ordered access.

The motion judge had found the mother's non-compliance was not intentional, as she could not afford travel due to the father's failure to pay ordered costs, and that Quebec, where the child had lived for over three years, was the proper jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the test for contempt or her determination that Ontario was no longer the appropriate jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed a trial decision granting custody, child and spousal support, and equal division of the proceeds of a jointly owned home to the respondent.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in treating the home as joint property, enforcing the parties' Islamic marriage contract (Nikah), excluding the Maher payment from net family property, and awarding spousal support.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings or application of family law principles.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Czutrin J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party filed no materials, the court made no order as to costs.

The appellant appealed a final order reducing his spousal support obligation and dismissing his request to rescind arrears.

He argued the application judge erred by including his pension income in the support calculation, which he claimed resulted in double dipping, and by awarding support above the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the parties' separation agreement expressly included pension income for post-retirement support and the application judge's exercise of discretion to award support above the SSAG range was reasonable given the parties' unequal financial positions.

The moving party mother sought an order for security for costs against the responding party father, who was seeking leave to appeal an ex parte order requiring him to return their children from the United Kingdom to Ontario.

The court found that the father was not ordinarily resident in Ontario and failed to establish impecuniosity.

Furthermore, the court determined that the proposed appeal lacked merit and did not raise issues of general importance.

The motion for security for costs was granted, and the father was ordered to post $2,500 before proceeding with his motion for leave to appeal.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order on a motion to change child support, arguing errors of fact and law regarding imputed income and the application of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, noting the appellant's persistent failure to provide financial disclosure.

However, the Court found an error of law in the trial judge's application of the 2017 Guidelines instead of the 2011 Guidelines for the period prior to November 2017.

The appeal was allowed in part to correct the child support calculations using the 2011 Guidelines, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

Following a successful appeal that increased the father's parenting time, the court issued supplementary reasons to determine the parenting schedule for the summer of 2021.

The mother opposed the father's request for time, citing the children's enrollment in summer camps and a planned trip.

The court found the mother's attitude concerning and ordered a schedule that provided the father with three weeks of parenting time, requiring the cancellation of some recently booked camps to prioritize the children's time with their father.

The appellant father appealed a trial judge's order granting the respondent mother sole custody, permitting her to relocate with the children to Montreal, setting parenting time, and awarding costs.

The father also brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it was offered to test the trial judge's conclusions in hindsight rather than to update the court on the children's circumstances.

The court upheld the trial judge's decisions on custody and relocation, finding no palpable and overriding errors.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part regarding parenting time, finding the trial judge failed to give sufficient weight to the maximum contact principle and the father's ability to teach the children about their Inuit heritage.

The court expanded the father's parenting time to include extended alternate weekends and significant holiday and summer blocks.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering him to pay $25,000 to his former common-law partner for unpaid loans and living expenses.

He argued the trial judge failed to credit him for certain payments and that his debt should be reduced because the respondent had entered into a consumer proposal with her creditors.

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

The court also held that the respondent's consumer proposal did not reduce the value of the debt the appellant owed to her.

The applicants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing their motion for summary judgment in a child protection proceeding.

The applicants had sought to dismiss the protection application on the basis that the child was over 18 years old at the time of apprehension.

The motion judge concluded that the child's age could not be determined summarily due to contradictory evidence and directed the matter to trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding the applicants failed to meet the test under Rule 62.02(4).

There were no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, no procedural unfairness, and the issue was not of general importance.

Following a successful appeal that set aside an order requiring the appellant to have a litigation guardian, the court determined the costs of the appeal.

The appellant sought substantial indemnity costs of over $30,000, arguing that full recovery is the norm in family law proceedings.

The respondent argued for no costs due to the novelty of the issue, or alternatively $7,000.

The Divisional Court held that the normal rule of partial indemnity costs applies to appellate proceedings in this court, rejecting the family law full-recovery norm for appeals.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The parties consented to set aside a previous order and agreed that the costs of the set-aside order would be determined by written submissions.

The respondent on appeal had made an offer to settle which the appellant accepted just days before responding materials were due, causing the respondent to incur unnecessary preparation costs.

The court found that the appellant's delay in accepting the offer warranted a costs award in favour of the respondent, fixing costs at $5,000.

The appellant mother appealed a motions judge's order that required the respondent father to pay reduced child support of $250 per month for their adult son attending university, and dismissed her claim for retroactive child support.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge's decision was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The reduced support amount appropriately accounted for the son's bursary, part-time work, and the father's payment of his car insurance, while the conflicting evidence did not establish an entitlement to retroactive support.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) moved for leave to appeal an interlocutory order requiring it to pay for a mother's psychiatric assessment in a custody and access dispute.

The motions judge had ordered the OCL to pay because the mother lacked funds and the judge required an assessment, despite the OCL's position that it would proceed without one if the parties could not pay.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of ordering a non-party government office to pay for a private litigant's assessment, and noting the issue is of general public importance to the administration of justice.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision regarding the care of his child, arguing the trial judge erred in relying on a doctor's findings about emotional harm and placed undue weight on his economic circumstances.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence of the appellant's improved employment and housing but dismissed the appeal.

The court found the trial judge properly assessed the risk of emotional harm based on the appellant's history of inappropriate disciplinary measures and dysfunctional parenting.

The court also held that the trial judge appropriately considered the appellant's financial ability to provide a secure home as part of the mandated best interests analysis under the Child and Family Services Act.

The appellant grandparents appealed a summary judgment order that granted them access to their grandchildren at the discretion of the respondent parents.

The grandparents, who were self-represented at the motion, argued they were denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge struck an appropriate balance and afforded the grandfather ample time to present his case.

The court also upheld the summary judgment, applying the principle from Chapman v. Chapman that parents have the right to decide whom their children see, absent evidence they are not acting in the children's best interests.

The parties sought determination of several issues regarding the calculation of net family property, including whether a 'granny flat' occupied by the wife's mother formed part of the matrimonial home, whether an investment account was a gift from the husband's father, and whether the wife was a joint owner of that account.

The court held that the granny flat was part of the matrimonial home as it was ordinarily occupied by the family.

The court also found that the investment account was a gift to the husband, but that he subsequently made an immediate gift of a joint interest to the wife by signing a joint account agreement.

The court applied a pro rata approach to trace the remaining gift funds in the mixed investment account.