Family and Matrimonial Law - ONCA

This appeal concerns a family law dispute involving claims for unjust enrichment arising from a joint family venture and spousal support.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the trial judge’s award of $3,000,000 in damages for unjust enrichment, $365,624 in lump sum spousal support, and $475,000 in costs to the respondent, Katherine Ann Mullin.

The court found that the trial judge properly applied the law regarding unjust enrichment and joint family ventures, and that the evidence supported the findings.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether the application judge erred in refusing to order the return of a child to the United Kingdom under the Hague Convention, on the basis that the left-behind parent had consented to or acquiesced in the child’s retention in Canada.

The Court found that the application judge conflated consent to future relocation with consent to the present retention, and that the evidence did not support a finding of consent or acquiescence to the wrongful retention.

The appeal was allowed and the return of the child to the U.K. was ordered, with undertakings imposed to protect the child’s best interests.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario quashed the appeal of Michael Paul Duffy, finding that the order under appeal was interlocutory rather than final.

The order in question enforced a right of first refusal for the sale of the matrimonial home, as previously agreed in a consent order.

The court held that the order did not determine the substantive rights of the parties but merely implemented the final consent order, and thus an appeal lay to the Divisional Court with leave, not to the Court of Appeal.

Costs were awarded to Leona Duffy.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered motions to set aside an administrative dismissal of an appeal and to extend the time to perfect the appeal, as well as a cross-motion for conditions to protect assets pending appeal.

The court granted both the motion and cross-motion, reinstating the appeal and imposing conditions to address the risk of asset dissipation.

The decision discusses the relevant factors for setting aside an administrative dismissal and for granting an extension of time, including the merits of the appeal, the explanation for delay, and the best interests of the children.

The court also imposed specific conditions to ensure transparency and protect the respondent’s interests.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted the moving party, M.H., several orders following the administrative dismissal of O.K.'s family law appeal.

The court awarded costs for motions, declared the costs awards to be "support orders" under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, and directed the issuance and enforcement of support deduction orders.

The decision clarifies the enforceability of costs awards as support orders and the process for their enforcement through the Family Responsibility Office.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a motion for restrictions on access to the court file and decision in a Hague Convention child abduction appeal, where the child had been granted refugee status.

The appellant sought anonymization, a publication ban, and sealing of documents created under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The court reviewed the open court principle, the best interests of the child, and the test for discretionary limits on openness from Sherman Estate v. Donovan.

The court ordered anonymization, a publication ban, and sealing of IRPA documents, but declined to seal the entire file, balancing the child’s privacy and safety against the public interest in court openness.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed both the main appeal and cross-appeal in a dispute over the beneficial ownership and occupation of a house acquired during a brief marriage.

The court upheld the application judge’s finding that Ms. Qu was the 100% beneficial owner of the house by way of resulting trust, rejecting Mr. Zhang’s arguments regarding the presumption of joint tenancy and the sufficiency of evidence.

The court also upheld the award of occupation rent to Ms. Qu and declined to order additional security for potential future repairs, finding no error in the application judge’s approach or findings.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted a motion to quash an appeal in a family law matter concerning a motion for a sealing order and publication ban to protect a child’s privacy.

The court held that the order under appeal was interlocutory, not final, and thus any appeal lay to the Divisional Court with leave, not to the Court of Appeal.

The decision reviews the distinction between interlocutory and final orders, emphasizing that privacy and sealing orders are generally collateral to the main issues in family law proceedings and do not determine substantive rights.

The court also declined to reconstitute itself as the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Manpreet Dhaliwal’s appeal from the trial decision and costs order in her family and civil actions against Hardeep Singh Nijher and his family.

The court found no legal or factual errors in the trial judge’s findings regarding property equalization, spousal support, and damages for intentional infliction of mental distress.

The trial judge’s credibility findings against the appellant were upheld, and the court found no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness.

Leave to appeal the costs order was also denied.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a motion by Barbara Lang-Newlands regarding the operation of the automatic stay under rule 63.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure following a family law trial judgment.

The court addressed whether certain monetary awards (post-separation adjustments) should be characterized as support and thus exempt from the stay, and whether the stay should be lifted or maintained on various payments pending appeal.

The court declined to recharacterize the payments as support, but exercised its discretion to lift the stay on Ian Newlands' obligation to pay post-separation adjustments, given the risk that Barb would not recover the funds if the stay remained.

The court ordered Barb to pay Ian the net difference and expedited the appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the father’s appeal from a family law order that varied parenting and support arrangements.

The court found that the trial judge’s reasons were clear, sound, and based on the evidence, and that the findings were consistent with the Divorce Act.

The trial judge’s decision to grant the mother primary care and sole decision-making authority, as well as to vary child and spousal support, was upheld.

The court emphasized deference to the trial judge’s factual findings and the best interests of the children.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Terrence Chapman, who sought a 50% share in real estate and corporate assets held with Sandra Ing, his former partner in both business and personal life.

The trial judge found that the parties were not involved in a joint family venture and that Chapman would be unjustly enriched by an equal division, given Ing’s substantial contributions to the value of the property in question.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision, finding no juristic reason for Chapman’s enrichment under the Ontario Business Corporations Act and confirming the appropriateness of a proprietary remedy in favour of Ing.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Matthew James Avery from an uncontested trial order requiring him to pay child support, s. 7 expenses, and granting a vesting order for sole title to the matrimonial home to Angela Nadine Wade.

The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify hearing the appeal, no error in the trial judge’s exercise of discretion, and that the appellant had adequate notice of the relief sought.

The court also held that the absence of evidence of the current value of the home did not result in injustice, particularly given the appellant’s failure to participate or provide disclosure.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Kirk Richard Iredale’s appeal from the Superior Court’s order regarding equalization of assets and spousal support following the breakdown of his marriage to Carol Jeanette Dougall.

The court held that the trial judge properly found the equalization payment remedied any unjust enrichment and that a time-limited spousal support award was appropriate.

The court also upheld the trial judge’s refusal to admit fresh evidence post-trial.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Berge Marcarian from the trial judge’s determination of the date of separation in his marriage to Karen Nairi Kassabian.

The trial judge found the date of separation to be May 16, 2021, as asserted by the wife, rather than December 10, 2014, as claimed by the husband.

The appellate court held that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in her factual findings or application of the law, and that her reasons were sufficient.

The decision provides a comprehensive review of the legal principles and factors relevant to determining the date of separation in family law, emphasizing the objective, fact-driven nature of the analysis and the high deference owed to trial judges on such determinations.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed Sheri Thom’s appeal in part, finding that the trial judge erred by imputing income to her for support purposes without considering the impact of family violence on her earning capacity.

The court upheld the trial judge’s decision to deny her request to relocate with her child to New Brunswick, finding no reversible error in the best interests analysis.

The court recalculated support obligations, holding that no income should be imputed to the appellant, and awarded her costs of the appeal.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings in a family law application regarding child support for failing to comply with financial disclosure orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the remedy was not excessive given the appellant had breached six previous orders and received multiple warnings.

The court also upheld the motion judge's award of full recovery costs based on a finding of bad faith.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal in a family law matter concerning spousal support.

The respondent wife sought full recovery costs of $38,642.47, while the appellant husband sought partial costs of $16,264.29.

The Court of Appeal found that the respondent was largely successful on the contested issues on appeal, particularly in resisting the appellant's argument that the application judge erred in awarding spousal support.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondent.

The mother appealed a 2011 order finding her in contempt and a 2013 order reversing custody of the parties' three children to the father and limiting her access.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.

The contempt finding was set aside because the interim orders allegedly breached had been superseded by Minutes of Settlement.

The court found the trial judge erred in relying on the Child and Family Services Act and parens patriae jurisdiction, but upheld the decision to reverse custody based on the trial judge's finding of emotional abuse by the mother.

However, the court found the trial judge erred by not setting a fixed timeframe for an access review.

The court ordered a review of access arrangements and increased the mother's access in the interim.

Costs payable by the mother for the proceedings below were reduced from $400,000 to $200,000.

The appellant challenged a family law order setting aside a marriage contract, arguing the trial was unfair because of his hearing impairment.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge accommodated the self-represented appellant and that the record did not support any unfairness affecting the outcome.

The court further held it was open to the trial judge to conclude there had been inadequate financial disclosure and that the responding party did not understand the nature or consequences of the contract.

Fresh evidence was admitted for the limited purpose of understanding the hearing-impairment argument, but the appeal was dismissed.