Family and Matrimonial Law - ONCA

The self-represented appellant mother sought leave to appeal a costs order made following a lengthy family law trial in which the respondent father was largely successful.

The trial judge had awarded the father net costs of $20,000 after setting off support arrears, noting the father's reasonable offers to settle and the mother's bad faith conduct.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle and held the costs award was not plainly wrong.

Leave to appeal the costs order was denied.

The appellant, who had a long history of family law litigation and outstanding costs and child support arrears, appealed an SCJ order that quashed his previous appeals as an abuse of process.

He also brought motions to adduce fresh evidence and to review a single judge's decision dismissing his motion to amend his notice of appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the fresh evidence motion as irrelevant and the review motion as meritless.

The Court exercised its discretion to refuse to entertain the appeal due to the appellant's continuing disobedience of court orders regarding financial obligations, and noted there was no basis for appellate intervention in any event.

An appeal from a trial judge's order setting aside a separation agreement under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act and section 15.2 of the Divorce Act.

The trial judge had set aside the agreement in its entirety and recalculated spousal support.

The appellate court found that while the trial judge erred in setting aside the entire agreement under section 56(4), the spousal support terms did not comply with the objectives of the Divorce Act under the Miglin analysis.

The court allowed the appeal in part, maintaining the separation agreement but modifying the spousal support provisions to remove the cohabitation clause and make support indefinite, while preserving the original quantum of $28,800 annually.

The appellant father appealed an order from an uncontested trial where his pleadings were struck for non-disclosure in a child support motion to change.

The respondent mother brought a motion to quash the appeal, arguing the father lacked standing.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash, dismissing the appeal.

The court affirmed that parties whose pleadings are struck generally lack standing to appeal an uncontested trial order, finding no exceptional circumstances.

It clarified that evolving Section 7 expenses do not constitute new heads of relief requiring amended pleadings, distinguishing the case from Freedman v. Freedman.

The court emphasized the importance of disclosure in child support matters.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's finding that the date of separation for an equalization claim under the Family Law Act was February 2015.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in making credibility findings by failing to address alleged inconsistencies in the respondent's evidence and in making findings of fact based on conflicting affidavits not subject to thorough cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of evidence and credibility, and no unfairness in the trial procedure regarding witness cross-examination, noting the appellant had requested the limited cross-examination.

The appellant, Armen Petrosian, appealed orders permitting the respondent, Hasmik Tovmasyan, to relocate to California with their two children, and awarding child and spousal support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the Children's Law Reform Act regarding relocation, including the onus under s. 39.4(6), and no error in the imputation of income for support calculations.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion for retroactive child support payments against her deceased ex-husband's estate.

The original 1978 Decree Nisi did not state that the child support obligation would bind the estate.

The motion judge ruled that under s. 17 of the Divorce Act, an application to claim or vary a support order against a decedent's estate cannot be brought if the original order is silent on binding the estate.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming that a support obligation under divorce legislation ends upon the payor's death unless specifically agreed otherwise, and that the Divorce Act lacks a provision similar to the Family Law Act that binds an estate.

Appeal from a motion judge's order reducing spousal support from $4,000 per month to $1 per month.

The parties had entered into a minutes of settlement in 1991 providing for lifetime spousal support.

The respondent sought to eliminate support following his retirement at age 72, when his income decreased from $250,000-$300,000 annually to $65,000.

The motion judge found two material changes in circumstances: the appellant's failure to seek employment and the respondent's retirement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the appellant's failure to seek employment was not a material change in circumstances, but the respondent's substantial income reduction was.

The court set aside the $1 per month order and substituted an order for $850 per month for life, applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines proportionally to the respondent's decreased income.

Appeal from orders of the Superior Court requiring the appellant mother to return two children to their habitual residence in England pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The application judge declined to assess whether the grave risk of harm exception applied due to conflicting affidavit evidence and ordered the children's return.

The Court of Appeal found three errors: the application judge improperly awarded custody as a sanction for breach of the return order, lacked jurisdiction to order the appellant to return to England with the children, and erred in declining to assess the grave risk of harm exception under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention.

The appeal was allowed and the orders were set aside.

The appellant husband appealed from a motion judge's order that struck his reply factum, rectified an overpayment of trust funds, and struck his pleadings for failure to comply with court orders.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on three grounds: the husband was denied the opportunity to respond fully to the wife's motion to strike; the motion judge overstated the wife's efforts to move the case to trial; and the motion judge failed to consider whether lesser remedies would suffice.

The court set aside the order striking the pleadings and substituted specific disclosure orders with consequences for non-compliance.

Following protracted custody and access litigation involving two trials and a prior appeal, a costs award of $200,000 was made in favour of the father.

The mother subsequently filed for bankruptcy before the costs could be enforced.

The father sought to lift the automatic stay of bankruptcy under section 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to enforce the costs award against the mother's exempt assets (RRSPs).

The motion judge granted the order, finding material prejudice and equitable grounds.

The mother appealed, arguing the lift-stay remedy applies only to equalization claims, not costs awards.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the lift-stay remedy applies to costs awards in appropriate circumstances and that the motion judge properly found material prejudice and equitable grounds based on the mother's breach of representations to the court and the protracted nature of the family litigation.

The applicant and respondent were former spouses who entered into an oral agreement that the respondent would pay premiums on a life insurance policy and receive the proceeds upon the deceased's death.

The deceased subsequently designated the applicant as an irrevocable beneficiary under the policy without informing the respondent, who continued paying premiums.

Upon the deceased's death, the respondent claimed entitlement to the proceeds based on unjust enrichment and sought a constructive trust.

The application judge ruled in the respondent's favour, finding an equitable assignment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the application judge erred in relying on the doctrine of equitable assignment, which was neither pleaded nor argued.

The court found that the irrevocable beneficiary designation provisions of the Insurance Act provided a valid juristic reason for the applicant's receipt of the proceeds, making unjust enrichment unavailable.

An appeal concerning jurisdiction to award child support and equalization of net family property following a valid foreign divorce.

The appellant, a Canadian resident, was married to the respondent, who resided in China.

The respondent commenced a divorce application in Ontario seeking spousal support, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The appellant subsequently obtained a divorce in China.

The trial judge found that the Ontario Superior Court had jurisdiction to award corollary relief under the Divorce Act despite the foreign divorce.

The Court of Appeal reversed on the Divorce Act issue but upheld jurisdiction under the Family Law Act for child support and equalization.

The self-represented appellant appealed a final judgment in family law proceedings, arguing the trial judge erred by refusing her requests for an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, noting the trial judge confirmed the appellant was prepared to proceed at the outset and properly rejected a mid-trial adjournment request lacking medical documentation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant father and respondent mother lived in Germany with their two children.

The mother brought the children to Ontario for a time-limited educational stay with the father's consent.

When the consent period expired, the mother refused to return the children to Germany.

The application judge ordered the children's return under the Hague Convention, finding their habitual residence remained in Germany.

The Divisional Court reversed this decision, finding the habitual residence had changed to Ontario.

The Court of Appeal allowed the father's appeal, holding that a parent cannot unilaterally change a child's habitual residence during a time-limited consensual stay, and ordered the children returned to Germany.

The appellant husband appealed judgments in a debt action and a matrimonial proceeding.

In the debt action, the trial judge found the husband jointly liable with his former wife for three loans advanced by her father.

In the matrimonial proceeding, the trial judge ordered spousal support, child support including section 7 expenses, and determined equalization amounts without discounting the wife's debts to her father.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual conclusions or assessment of credibility.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that ordered her to pay an equalization payment and denied her request for lump sum child support.

The respondent had refused to disclose his net worth, failed to pay child support, and disappeared prior to trial.

The Court of Appeal set aside the equalization payment and, admitting fresh actuarial evidence, awarded lump sum child support.

To satisfy the respondent's support and other obligations, the Court ordered his equity in the jointly owned matrimonial home to be vested in the appellant.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from orders relating to a divorce application that proceeded on an uncontested basis due to his failure to comply with disclosure orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no adequate explanation for the eight-month delay, significant prejudice to the responding party's health, and a lack of merit in the proposed grounds of appeal.

The court also noted the moving party's history of non-compliance with court orders.

The appellant challenged the dismissal of her claims arising from a property transfer and alleged monies owing, arguing trial unfairness, inadequate reasons, and errors in the rejection of resulting trust and constructive trust remedies.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to restrict cross-examination on a document withheld in breach of a trial management order and that no unfairness resulted.

It further held that the trial judge gave adequate reasons and made factual findings open on the record supporting the conclusions that consideration was provided for the property transfer, no unjust enrichment was established, and the money-advanced claim failed.

The appeal was dismissed with fixed appeal costs to the respondent.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings.

The motion judge had struck the pleadings due to the appellant's failure to pay a prior costs order, lack of diligence in providing financial disclosure, and failure to respond to the respondent's efforts to resolve the matter.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge properly exercised her discretion in refusing an adjournment and striking the pleadings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.