Family and Matrimonial Law - ODC

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order transferring a matter from the Family Law Team to the Civil Law Team in Toronto.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was good reason to doubt the motion judge's finding on jurisdiction, the decision to have the matter addressed by the Civil Law Team was an exercise of administrative discretion that did not raise a matter of such importance to warrant leave to appeal.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,620 all inclusive.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of McPherson J. dated April 5, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,500.

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

On consent of the parties, the motion for leave to appeal was withdrawn without costs.

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 applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

However, because the motion judge delayed releasing reasons for three and a half months, which justified bringing the motion, the court made no order as to costs.

The court also noted that the best interests of the child would be served by proceeding to trial as quickly as possible.

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 moving party sought leave to appeal a case conference order dated November 21, 2021.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 14, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $4,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 14, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000.

The parties, former spouses, owned an apartment building as joint tenants.

Their divorce agreement gave the appellant a right of first refusal to buy out the respondent's interest, contingent on securing financing and escrowing funds for tax liability.

The appellant failed to exercise this right within the 90-day deadline due to a disagreement over the tax calculation.

The respondent successfully applied for the sale of the property under the Partition Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing the judge misapprehended the dispute as a partition matter rather than a contract dispute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable error of law and confirming the appellant's right of first refusal had lapsed.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated June 7, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the respondent.

The self-represented appellant commenced an appeal in the Divisional Court from a final family law order granting spousal support and equalization.

The amounts ordered were well in excess of the Divisional Court's monetary jurisdiction under s. 19 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent sought to dismiss the appeal, arguing prejudice from delay and that she had previously warned the appellant he was in the wrong court.

Applying the test under s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act, the Divisional Court found there had been confusion regarding jurisdiction and ordered the appeal transferred to the Court of Appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 22, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000.

The appellant appealed an order for the partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by misunderstanding a prior order, ordering the sale despite a prima facie case for unequal division of net family property, and failing to consider evidence of oppressive conduct related to the sale.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error of law in the motion judge's comprehensive reasons, which correctly applied the law regarding a joint tenant's prima facie right to sale before trial.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) upholding the Director's proposal to refuse to renew its residential care licence.

The LAT had excluded the appellant's proposed expert evidence regarding fire safety and the standard of care for treatment foster homes, citing efficiency and lack of necessity.

The Divisional Court found that the excluded evidence was central to the case and clearly relevant, and that its exclusion amounted to a palpable and overriding error that prejudiced the appellant's ability to make full answer and defence.

The appeal was allowed, the LAT's decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different panel.

The applicants, foster parents who had cared for a three-year-old child since birth, sought judicial review of a Child and Family Services Review Board decision that overruled the Children's Aid Society's approval of their adoption application.

The Board had directed the child be placed with the respondents, who had previously adopted two of the child's maternal half-siblings, citing the importance of the child's Métis heritage and biological siblings.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision unreasonable, noting it applied differential standards to the evidence, ignored the child's strong bond with the foster family, and relied on speculation regarding the child's ability to transition to a new home.

The application for judicial review was allowed, the Board's decision was quashed, and the Society's decision approving the applicants' adoption was restored.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision ordering no costs payable by either party following a successful Motion to Change.

The appellant argued he was entitled to costs based on his success and two offers to settle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly determined that the presumption of costs was outweighed by the undue hardship an adverse costs award would cause the respondent and the child in her care.

The court held the trial judge's exercise of discretion was entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court order dismissing her action for unpaid rent and misappropriated funds against her former partner.

The Deputy Judge had dismissed the action on the basis that it should be dealt with in the parties' family law action.

The Divisional Court found the Deputy Judge erred, as the Ontario Court of Justice had already struck the property claims for lack of jurisdiction.

Rather than remitting the matter, the Divisional Court granted judgment for the appellant, awarding $4,715 for unpaid rent and misappropriated funds, $1,000 in punitive and aggravated damages, and $2,500 in costs.