Family and Matrimonial Law - ODC

The moving party father sought an urgent stay of an interim order granting the responding party mother sole decision-making responsibility regarding their eight-year-old child's medical treatment, pending a motion for leave to appeal.

The mother wished to follow a pediatric endocrinologist's advice to commence treatment for a medical condition, while the father opposed it.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the father failed to establish a serious issue to be determined on the motion for leave to appeal, as there were no conflicting decisions on the legal principles and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's factual findings.

The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured expeditious decision-making in the child's best interests.

The moving party, a self-represented litigant, failed to attend her scheduled appeal hearing, resulting in the appeal being dismissed.

She brought a motion to set aside the dismissal, claiming she had inadvertently mis-diarized the date.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding her explanation lacked credibility given her history of delay and past dishonesty to the court.

The court also noted the appeal lacked apparent merit, was technically out of time, and that rescheduling would waste scarce judicial resources.

A case management endorsement setting the timetable for an expedited appeal to the Divisional Court.

The appeal concerns the scheduling and hearing of a recusal motion and an outstanding motion by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court established deadlines for serving appeal records and factums, and scheduled the appeal to be heard by Zoom videoconference.

The applicant, a self-represented lawyer, brought a motion within his application for judicial review regarding adoption disclosure.

He sought orders requiring the respondent Children's Aid Society to file a proper response to a Request to Admit, file a complete Record of Proceedings, permit him to file his own affidavit, and permit a 45-page factum.

The court dismissed the motion except for allowing the applicant to file his own affidavit, finding the respondent's 'not relevant' responses to the Request to Admit were proper and the Record of Proceedings was complete.

The mother brought a motion to stay two orders of a motions judge pending appeal.

The motions judge had ordered that the child be placed in the primary care of the father and suspended his child support obligations, after the mother sought permission to relocate the child to Ottawa.

The Divisional Court granted the stay, finding that the mother had a strong arguable appeal, that changing the child's long-standing primary residence with the mother would cause irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo pending the appeal.

Costs of $3,000 were awarded to the mother.

The respondent husband sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that struck portions of his voluminous affidavit material and set parameters for an upcoming interim spousal support motion.

The motion judge had restricted the evidence to whether the applicant wife could establish a prima facie case that an alleged separation agreement was unenforceable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's case management intervention, which was deemed necessary to maintain proportionality given the excessive material filed.

Three mothers sought judicial review of decisions made by the Motherisk Commission regarding their child protection cases.

The court first ruled that the mandatory publication ban under s. 45(8) of the Child and Family Services Act prevented the media from publishing the mothers' names, even with their consent.

The court then dismissed one application as moot because the applicant had already received a favourable ruling from the Commissioner.

The remaining two applications were dismissed as premature because the applicants had not yet exhausted the internal reconsideration processes available before the Commission.

The applicant was unsuccessful on a motion for leave to appeal.

The respondent sought costs of the motion on a substantial or partial indemnity basis, while the applicant argued no costs should be ordered.

The court found that the issues did not transcend the interest of the parties and a costs order was warranted under the Courts of Justice Act and applicable rules.

The court awarded costs to the respondent fixed at $2,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a costs decision, which was previously denied.

The court then addressed the costs of the leave application.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs, arguing the matter was complex, unnecessarily lengthened by the applicant, and entirely successful.

The court agreed, noting the applicant's late filings, lack of merit, incomplete materials, and allegations of bias.

The applicant was ordered to pay $17,253.00 in full indemnity costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a motion judge's decision that declined to determine whether Ontario or Georgia law applied to child and spousal support, deferring the issue to the trial judge.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, noting that both parties had requested the determination, the jurisprudence on the applicable law was unsettled, and deferring the issue would leave the moving party in procedural limbo while preparing for trial under two different legal regimes.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order directing her to provide a detailed accounting of the proceeds from the sale of a property.

The underlying dispute involved allegations of fraudulent conveyances by the applicant's former spouse and his business partner to thwart support and equalization orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and no issue of general public importance, as the matter was strictly a dispute between the parties over an accounting.

The moving party sought costs following a motion to quash an appeal or, in the alternative, for security for costs.

Although the motion to quash was dismissed, the moving party was successful in obtaining an order for security for costs.

The court found that success was not divided, as most of the preparation time was relevant to both issues.

The responding party, who was self-represented, was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs of $5,577.50, to be paid from her share of the proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned property.

The appellant mother appealed two orders of Crown wardship regarding her two children, who were apprehended at birth.

She argued that the child protection provisions of the Child and Family Services Act were unconstitutional, that the matters should be heard in criminal court, and that she was denied procedural fairness at trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding that child protection falls under provincial jurisdiction, child protection hearings must be separate from criminal proceedings, and the trial judge made no procedural errors in managing the trial.

The court also confirmed that a finding of a child in need of protection is based on the risk of future harm, not past harm.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order granting the responding party interim disbursements of $25,300.99 for legal fees, payable from the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home.

The application judge had ordered the disbursement to 'level the playing field' after the moving party's legal aid lien was paid from the proceeds.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding conflicting decisions on whether interim disbursements can be ordered solely for legal fees and whether they should be paid from funds over which the opposing party has an arguable claim, particularly when the party receiving the funds will likely owe an equalization payment.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order imposing conditions on access to audio tapes and a two-week notice period for further motions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, noting that the condition regarding access to the tapes had already been complied with and the notice period was a procedural matter within the motions judge's discretion.

No costs were ordered.

The respondent appealed a motion judge's ruling that leave was required to appeal a temporary spousal support order made under the Divorce Act.

The respondent argued that the Divorce Act provided an unfettered right of appeal that superseded the leave requirements of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Divorce Act's appeal provisions must be read in conjunction with provincial procedural rules, meaning leave to appeal an interlocutory order is still required.

The parents appealed a summary judgment order declaring their child a Crown ward without access.

They argued the motions judge erred by admitting past parenting capacity assessments and that the summary judgment rule in child protection cases violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the assessments were expressly admissible under the Child and Family Services Act and declining to hear the Charter challenge as it was raised for the first time on appeal without an evidentiary foundation.

The applicant father appealed a motion judge's decision varying child support, arguing the judge erred by refusing to impute income to the respondent mother, refusing to make the support increase and extraordinary expenses retroactive, and denying his claims regarding an educational fund.

The father also sought to introduce new evidence of the mother's income tax return.

The Divisional Court admitted the new evidence but found it would not have changed the motion judge's decision.

The court held that the motion judge made no error in fact or law and applied the correct standard of review, dismissing the appeal and awarding costs to the respondent.

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his motion to vary child support and rescind over $20,000 in arrears.

He argued that his income had severely diminished due to depression and that the motions judge erred in imputing an annual income of $40,000 based on his past work in family businesses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to meet his onus of establishing a material change in circumstances.

The majority held that the motions judge was entitled to conclude that his income was difficult to discern and that a trial of an issue was not required.

The appellant executor appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $75,000 in dependant's support under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The trial judge found the respondent was a 'spouse' who had continuously cohabited with the deceased for at least three years prior to his death, and that her evidence was sufficiently corroborated.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding cohabitation or the quantum of support awarded.