Family and Matrimonial Law - ODC

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision granting partial summary judgment to the respondent on property issues following a 34-year marriage.

The motion judge had dismissed the appellant's claims for unjust enrichment and an unequal division of net family property, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding allegations that the respondent diverted funds.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's preference for the respondent's financial reconciliation over the appellant's expert report, and no error of law in determining the unequal division claim before finalizing the exact equalization payment.

The appellant appealed an interim order requiring him to pay $45,000 per month in spousal support, arguing the motion judge erred by failing to apply the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAGs) for a high-income earner.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's case-specific analysis of the parties' means and needs.

The court noted that the SSAGs are not strictly presumptive for incomes over $350,000 and that interim orders are entitled to significant deference.

The appellant, a high-profile public figure, appealed a motion judge's dismissal of his request for a sealing order and publication ban in a family law proceeding.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in law by failing to consider alternative protective measures such as anonymization and partial sealing.

The court also found a palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that there was no evidence of harm to the child, noting the child's need for security guards and signs of distress.

A partial sealing order and publication ban were granted to protect the child's privacy.

The appellant mother appealed a temporary order granting the respondent father equal parenting time on a week-about basis with their 15-month-old child.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in law by failing to conduct a proper analysis of the best interests of the child under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The motion judge failed to consider the child's young age, the status quo, allegations of family violence, and the AFCC-O Guidelines.

The temporary order was set aside and the matter remitted to a different judge, with an interim graduated parenting schedule put in place.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 25, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decisions of the lower court judge.

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

The appellant, a self-represented former lawyer, appealed a family law trial judgment, arguing the trial judge erred by refusing to admit his late-served documents into evidence.

The Divisional Court found no procedural unfairness, noting the appellant failed to comply with case management directions and offered inadequate explanations for the delay.

The court also observed that the appellant failed to demonstrate how the excluded documents would have materially changed the trial's outcome.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

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 moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Emery J. dated May 26, 2025.

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

The appellant husband sought to appeal a final order from a family law trial made under the Divorce Act to the Divisional Court.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The court found that the Divisional Court's jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act did not extend to this final order, as the payments ordered exceeded $50,000 and the order was not made by a Family Court judge or under an Ontario statute.

The appeal was dismissed as an abuse of process due to the clear lack of jurisdiction.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review in the Divisional Court to remove a parenting coordinator/arbitrator appointed under a consent order.

The respondent challenged the court's jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that under the Arbitration Act, an application to remove an arbitrator must be brought in the Superior Court of Justice or Family Court, not the Divisional Court.

The court also noted it would decline to exercise its discretion even if it had jurisdiction, as the proper route is under the Family Law Rules and the Arbitration Act.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Shore J. dated March 21, 2023.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and made no order as to costs.

The appellant mother sought to appeal a temporary order adding the child's kin as parties to a child protection proceeding for the limited purpose of seeking access.

The Divisional Court determined the order was interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal.

Applying the test under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court denied leave, finding no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and no issue of general importance.

The self-represented appellant failed to comply with previous court directions regarding the perfection of her appeal, citing a hearing disability, lack of computer access, and inability to participate in teleconferences.

After court staff successfully communicated with the appellant by telephone, the court scheduled a peremptory case management teleconference to address the respondent's proposed motion to dismiss the appeal for delay and to set a new timetable.

The appellant appealed an order requiring him to pay interim spousal support.

The original motion was brought solely to seek the sale of the matrimonial home, and neither party had requested interim spousal support in their motion materials.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge committed an error of law by ordering interim spousal support without providing the parties notice or an opportunity to make submissions on the issue.

The provision ordering spousal support was struck.

The appellant mother sought leave to appeal an order requiring her to post $25,000 in security for costs for her appeal of a custody and access decision.

The court reviewed the test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) and found no conflicting decisions or good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order.

The motion judge had properly considered the exceptional circumstances of the high-conflict litigation and the Family Law Rules.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory costs order made by Justice Gilmore.

While the applicant established a bona fide intention to appeal and a reasonable explanation for the delay, the court found no merit in the proposed appeal.

The applicant failed to demonstrate conflicting decisions or good reason to doubt the correctness of the costs order under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

The appellant brought a motion to stay portions of a final parenting order pending appeal.

Pending full argument on the stay motion, the court addressed the respondent's interim parenting time.

The appellant raised concerns about the respondent's accommodation and a recent medical incident where the respondent appeared disengaged.

The court found insufficient evidence to require supervised parenting time but ordered that the children reside with the appellant, with the respondent having specified daytime parenting time on weekends.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing her motion to disqualify the respondent's counsel and granting a cross-motion to strike certain material from her motion record based on settlement privilege.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge applied the correct tests for disqualification and settlement privilege, and that the proposed appeal did not raise issues of general importance extending beyond the interests of the parties.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a $30,000 costs order made against him following a family law motion regarding child custody.

The applicant argued there was conflicting case law on awarding costs in child-related issues and that the motions judge erred by not considering the respondent's offer to settle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions on principle and no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, as the respondent was clearly successful on the main issue of custody.