Family and Matrimonial Law - ONCA

The moving party sought to quash an appeal brought by the responding party from a motion judge's dismissal of a request to reconsider a costs order.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge's order refusing to reconsider the costs disposition was interlocutory, as it did not finally dispose of any substantive right.

Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and the appeal was quashed with costs awarded to the moving party.

The appellant mother appealed an order placing her two children in extended society care with no access.

The children, who are Métis, were apprehended due to exposure to domestic violence and adult sexual activity.

The Court of Appeal upheld the extended society care order, finding no error in the lower courts' assessment of the children's need for protection or the statutory time limits.

However, applying the Kawartha framework, the Court found the trial judge erred by placing the burden on the mother to prove access was beneficial.

The Court allowed the appeal in part, granting the mother monthly photograph access as it was in the children's best interests and would not impair adoption prospects.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal regarding spousal support, child support, and net family property, the respondent sought costs of $13,585 on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant suggested $10,000, citing modest success and unproven economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Court of Appeal fixed costs at $12,000 inclusive, noting the appeal was heard in writing, and ordered the costs enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office as a support order.

Following an appeal, the court issued a costs endorsement.

The respondent on appeal was awarded partial indemnity costs in the amount of $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The appellant brought a motion to set aside an order of Blair J.A., which denied his request for the province to pay for appeal transcripts and refused a stay of child support pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the single judge's analysis or conclusions and dismissed the motion.

The appellant appealed an order making his two biological children Crown wards with no access.

The appeal was dismissed for delay at a status hearing when the appellant failed to appear.

On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the appellant argued the notice of the status hearing did not adequately warn that the appeal could be dismissed.

The Court of Appeal agreed the notice was deficient but dismissed the appeal, finding no appealable error in the underlying wardship decision and concluding no useful purpose would be served by remitting the matter.

The appellant appealed a child protection judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the best interests of children require child protection matters to proceed expeditiously.

The court noted that permitting the appeal to proceed would delay final resolution contrary to policy imperatives, and that the appeal had very little merit.

The mother appealed an order staying her claims under the Divorce Act and Family Law Act for lack of jurisdiction.

The father cross-appealed the dismissal of his motion seeking the return of the children to China under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the mother's appeal, finding she was not ordinarily resident in Ontario and lacked a real and substantial connection to the province.

The Court allowed the father's cross-appeal, finding the children were habitually resident in China and not physically present in Ontario when the application commenced, thereby depriving the Ontario court of jurisdiction under s. 22 of the CLRA.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court to determine the appropriate order under s. 40 of the CLRA.

The appellant father appealed a trial decision granting sole custody of the parties' three children to the respondent mother.

The father argued the trial judge erred by failing to consider ordering the children to attend a homogeneous French-language school as a condition of custody.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did err in failing to consider such a condition, as the language of education is an important factor in the children's best interests.

However, the Court declined to order a change of schools on appeal, concluding that given the passage of time, it would no longer be in the children's best interests to disrupt their current education in a French immersion program.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion to quash the appellant's notice of appeal in a family law dispute.

The Court of Appeal found that most of the orders appealed from were interlocutory and outside its jurisdiction.

While the orders regarding the sale of the matrimonial home were final, the property had already been sold and the proceeds paid into court, rendering the appeal moot.

The motion to quash the appeal was granted with costs.

The mother appealed a decision granting Crown wardship with no access for her two younger children.

The trial judge had differentiated the situation of the older children, who were given a chance to reintegrate with the mother, from the younger children, who were doing well in foster care and had no alternative placement if reintegration failed.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's individual assessment of the best interests of each child and upheld the disposition of Crown wardship with no access.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judgment ordering joint custody of the parties' two children, arguing the parents could not communicate, there was a history of domestic violence, and the order lacked a dispute resolution mechanism.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge had an evidentiary basis to conclude the parties could effectively communicate once court orders preventing contact were lifted.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the domestic abuse allegations or the access schedule.

Following an appeal in which the respondent was largely successful, the Court of Appeal for Ontario awarded costs to the respondent.

The costs were fixed at $3,500, inclusive of Goods and Services Tax and disbursements.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to terminate child support and rescind or reduce arrears fixed at $39,782.72.

The appellant argued the application judge erred in interpreting section 17 of the Divorce Act and failed to weigh his health problems and competing obligations.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting the appellant's long-standing failure to pay support, his ability to work despite health issues, and his complete lack of contact with the child.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The mother appealed a trial decision awarding joint custody of the parties' young child and ordering the parents to attend counseling, with an unnamed counselor to resolve disputes.

The father cross-appealed the net family property equalization payment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the mother's appeal, finding the trial judge erred in awarding joint custody given the parents' complete inability to communicate and lack of historical cooperation.

The court also held the trial judge exceeded her jurisdiction by ordering counseling and delegating decision-making to a counselor.

Sole custody was awarded to the mother, and a new trial was ordered for access.

The father's cross-appeal regarding property was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a motions judge's finding that the sale of the respondent's business interest was an arm's length transaction and not bogus.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's factual conclusion, which was supported by evidence.

The court upheld the imputed income but amended the effective date of the retroactive order to the date of the application to vary, based on a concession by the respondent.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed with no order as to costs.

The appellant father appealed a trial judgment awarding joint custody of the children, seeking sole custody.

The respondent mother cross-appealed the joint custody order and the equalization of net family property, but abandoned the custody cross-appeal.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's difficult decision to award joint custody, noting it was not forcibly opposed.

The court also found no palpable error in the trial judge's equalization determination.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed without costs.

The respondent was in default of a child support order and his driver's licence was suspended after the Director sent a First Notice to his address on record.

The respondent brought a motion to reinstate his licence, claiming he did not receive the notice.

The motions judge ordered the reinstatement of the licence for 90 days to allow the respondent to bring a motion to vary support.

The Director appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Director proved proper service of the First Notice in accordance with the legislation.

The motions judge had no jurisdiction to order reinstatement or to make a refraining order outside the statutory 30-day period.

The paternal grandmother applied for access to her two grandchildren against the wishes of the children's parents.

The trial judge ordered access, finding it would be in the children's best interests to foster a relationship with their grandmother.

The parents appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the access application, holding that where parents are loving and devoted, their decisions regarding whom their children see and under what circumstances should be respected, and the court should not impose its own perception of the children's best interests.

The appellant challenged a family law decision upholding a trial judgment that granted the respondent unsupervised access, found the appellant in contempt, and awarded costs against her.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge carefully reviewed the evidence, made findings of fact amply supported by the record, applied the relevant legal principles, and properly exercised discretion on costs.

The appeal was characterized as an improper attempt to re-try the case and was dismissed in all respects.

The cross-appeal was also rejected, except that any remaining issues were left to be addressed in the Ontario Court on proper application.