Family and Matrimonial Law - ONCA

An appeal concerning the correct appellate jurisdiction and the discretionary transfer of an appeal.

The parties had a divorce order made in Texas that included parenting terms.

The Ontario Court of Justice found jurisdiction to address parenting issues.

The mother appealed to the Superior Court of Justice, which dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, finding that the appeal properly lay to the Court of Appeal for Ontario under section 73(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The mother requested a transfer to the Court of Appeal late in oral submissions, which the Superior Court judge declined.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Superior Court judge's characterization of the order and her discretionary decision not to transfer.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Susan Hutchison’s appeal from an order requiring her to pay spousal support to Matthew Bosrock and her application for leave to appeal the trial judge’s costs award.

The court found no error in the trial judge’s assessment of income, consideration of mortgage repayments, or imputation of income.

The court also upheld the costs award, finding that the trial judge properly considered the divided success at trial and the time spent on the main issues.

This is an appeal from a family law trial decision concerning spousal support, child support, equalization, and unjust enrichment.

The appellant raised eight grounds of appeal, grouped into errors in income imputation for both parties, errors in equalization payment calculation (including business valuation and a marriage-date account receivable), and the dismissal of an unjust enrichment claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the trial judge erred in disallowing a marriage-date deduction of $248,567 in the equalization calculation.

All other grounds of appeal, including those related to income imputation and the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, were dismissed.

The respondent's motion for fresh evidence was also dismissed, and no costs were awarded due to divided success.

This motion concerned an applicant's request for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal against a family law order concerning custody, access, and child support.

The applicant had prepared the notice within the prescribed period but failed to effect service in time.

The respondent opposed the extension, citing lack of merit and prejudice to the child.

The court, applying the well-known factors for extending time to appeal, found that while the applicant had a bona fide intention, the proposed appeal lacked merit, particularly as it sought to overturn factual findings justified by the record, including breaches of prior orders and abusive communications.

Considering the child's best interests, the court dismissed the motion for an extension of time.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement, awarding $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes to the respondent Toronto Police Services Board.

This decision followed an appeal from a Superior Court of Justice judgment.

The appellant appealed an order from a motion judge striking his pleadings related to financial matters due to his failure to pay spousal and child support, section 7 expenses, and non-compliance with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The appellant did not appear at the original motion and failed to identify any error by the motion judge on appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that striking pleadings was appropriate given the serious and long-standing nature of the appellant's breaches, emphasizing the essential role of financial disclosure in matrimonial proceedings.

This is an appeal by a father from a trial order regarding child support, retroactive child support, a charging order, and costs.

The trial judge imputed income to the father due to his failure to disclose and efforts to conceal income, awarded retroactive support, and secured obligations with a charging order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the father's appeal, upholding the trial judge's imputation of income, the retroactive child support award (consistent with the new Colucci framework), and the charging order, finding no palpable and overriding errors or jurisdictional issues.

Leave to appeal the costs order was also denied, as the trial judge's discretion was properly exercised given the father's conduct.

The appellant, G.C., appealed a lower court's dismissal of his appeal from a summary judgment motion that found his children in need of protection due to a risk of sexual harm by him under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The primary issue on appeal was whether the summary judgment procedure was suitable given the significant consequences and the appellant's inability to cross-examine affiants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the motion judge and appeal judge correctly applied the summary judgment test in child protection cases, including the principles from Kawartha-Haliburton, and properly weighed the evidence.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the appellant, AA, was previously awarded reasonable disbursements.

AA filed submissions seeking $1,382.75 in disbursements.

Respondent CC had no issue with the amount, and respondent BB did not file any submissions.

The court awarded AA the full amount of disbursements sought, payable jointly and severally by BB and CC.

This is a second appeal concerning a child protection order, specifically the "no access" portion of the order.

The mother (appellant) sought a rehearing or virtual access to her child, D.R., who was found in need of protection due to serious injuries inflicted by a parent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the appeal judge's decision to deny access, finding no palpable and overriding error in the best interests analysis under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The court emphasized the significant risk that led to the protection finding and the lack of a beneficial and meaningful relationship between the mother and child, noting the child's thriving in foster care.

The moving party sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal a $40,000 costs award arising from an unsuccessful motion to remove the responding party's counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the underlying order was interlocutory and therefore appealable only to the Divisional Court with leave.

Furthermore, the costs award was under the $50,000 threshold, which also directs the appeal to the Divisional Court.

The appellant appealed a spousal support order of $125,000 per month following a 24-year marriage.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing the respondent's needs and means, misapplied the Halliwell principle for high-income earners, and erred in awarding indefinite support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the respondent's compensatory entitlement, needs, and means, and confirming that the trial judge properly conducted an individualized fact-specific analysis.

This appeal arose from a long-standing, high-conflict family law dispute.

The appellants challenged a motion judge's order that clarified spousal support obligations, addressed the impact of bankruptcy on an equalization payment secured by a letter of credit, and apportioned trial costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's clarifications that periodic support continued due to the husband's failure to exercise a lump sum option, that the letter of credit securing equalization and support created an equitable trust not extinguished by bankruptcy, and that the allocation of trial costs was appropriate.

The appellant, Julie Lawrence, appealed the order of the motion judge regarding the disposition of her late father's estate.

The central issue was whether a $50,000 TD line of credit taken out prior to the deceased's marriage to the respondent (the estate trustee and second wife) was a debt of the estate or secured against the matrimonial home.

The motion judge found the estate liable for the debt.

The appellant also alleged the motion judge demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias and improperly refused an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the factual findings, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and no improper exercise of discretion regarding the adjournment or costs award.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to strike out the appellant's Answer and Claim and deny an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's decision.

The appellant was permitted limited participation at trial, entirely at the trial judge's discretion, contingent upon continued full compliance with child support obligations.

The respondent was awarded costs of $15,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

In this matrimonial appeal, the husband challenged a motion judge's order allowing the wife to amend her notice of motion to request a set-off of costs and interest owed by the wife against accumulated spousal support and costs owed by the husband.

The motion judge set off $331,533.54 against $479,130.91, resulting in a net amount of $147,597.37 owing from the husband to the wife.

The husband argued that set-off was not available in law and usurped the jurisdiction of the Family Responsibility Office.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the amendment was appropriately allowed under the Family Law Rules and that set-off was available under section 111 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal a costs order in a family law matter.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding no merit to the proposed appeal and determining that the trial judge had properly applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the trial judge's findings of bad faith against the appellant were fully supported by the record and that the costs order was justified under the mandatory language of Rule 24(8).

The appellant husband appealed an order from the Superior Court of Justice (Family Court Branch) in which the presiding judge severed the husband's divorce claim and made substantive orders in favour of the wife, including orders regarding pension division and an extension of the limitation period under the Family Law Act.

The wife had not filed an answer and may have been in default.

The Court of Appeal found that while the court could impose terms to secure the wife's participation, it was not open to the court to grant substantive relief in favour of the wife that had not been sought.

The order was set aside and the matter was remitted to a different judge.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order striking his pleadings for failing to comply with multiple court orders regarding financial disclosure and the deposit of rental income.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's willful non-compliance to be exceptional and egregious, particularly in the context of strict family law financial disclosure obligations.

The court also upheld the motion judge's decision to allow the respondent to amend her application to include a claim for constructive trust, noting no prejudice to the appellant.

The appellant challenged an order refusing to stay an Ontario application for spousal support and a beneficial ownership declaration respecting Ontario cottage properties.

Applying the real and substantial connection framework, the court held that Ontario had jurisdiction because the property was located in Ontario and the parties were ordinarily resident in Ontario as well as Florida during the final years of the relationship.

The court further held that the appellant failed to establish that Florida was clearly the more appropriate forum, including because the respondent would lose a legitimate juridical advantage on support under Florida law.

Ontario law was also properly applied to both the unjust enrichment and support claims.