Family and Matrimonial Law - ONCA

The self-represented appellant appealed an order regarding the care of and access to an incapable person for whom she acted as attorney for property and personal care.

The appellant abandoned arguments regarding deficient service of the cross-motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's findings of fact, noting the focus was properly on the interests of the incapable person rather than the appellant.

The appellant appealed a trial decision finding that a cottage he received from his father was a matrimonial home, valuing motorcycles at $27,000, and awarding substantial indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding abundant evidence supported the trial judge's conclusion that the cottage was used regularly by the family and served as collateral for the primary home.

The court also found no error in the valuation of the motorcycles or the costs award.

The appellant mother appealed a decision dismissing her appeal of a summary judgment order in a child protection status review.

In a previous appeal, the Court of Appeal had directed that the status review proceed by way of a 'new trial' so the mother could adduce fresh evidence challenging a psychologist's parenting capacity assessment.

The matter was subsequently decided by summary judgment rather than a viva voce trial.

The motion judge accepted the fresh evidence and found the psychologist's assessment baseless, but still granted summary judgment maintaining the children in the father's custody based on the mother's ongoing problematic behaviour and parental alienation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the summary judgment motion constituted a 'hearing' under the Family Law Rules and that no miscarriage of justice occurred since the motion judge accepted the mother's fresh evidence and the outcome was in the best interests of the children.

The appellant appealed an order permitting the respondent to purchase his interest in the matrimonial home at a price fixed by the court.

The Court of Appeal found procedural unfairness because the respondent failed to serve an amended notice of motion indicating her intention to seek this specific relief, and the appellant was not present when the issue was argued.

Because the house had already been re-sold, the Court did not set aside the sale but ordered that the respondent held the appellant's interest in trust and must account to him for his share of the proceeds.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the lower court.

The father appealed a trial judgment that transferred custody of his 16-year-old son to the mother due to severe parental alienation and authorized the mother to take the son to a specialized reunification workshop.

A stay of the trial judgment was previously granted.

The mother brought a motion to set aside the stay, and the son brought a motion for leave to intervene as an added party to the appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the mother's motion, finding the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the stay until the imminent appeal hearing.

The Court granted the son's motion to intervene, noting his age, the profound impact the order would have on his life, and the benefit of hearing his perspective, subject to terms preventing delay or the introduction of fresh evidence.

Following a 27-year marriage, the parties separated and engaged in a collaborative family law process to resolve issues including the valuation of their jointly owned businesses.

The process broke down, but the parties reached an informal agreement regarding the buyout of the wife's shares, which was partially performed.

The husband later initiated proceedings for divorce, equalization, and a compelled transfer of shares.

The trial judge found a binding agreement existed regarding the share valuation, ordered the husband to pay $800 per month in spousal support, and awarded the husband substantial indemnity costs due to the wife's unreasonable settlement demands.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the husband's appeal and the wife's cross-appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on the binding nature of the agreement, the spousal support award, and the costs order.

The parties separated after a 24-year marriage.

At separation, the husband's textile business was valued at up to $11.25 million.

By trial, market forces had reduced its value by $8-9 million.

The trial judge ordered an equalization payment of over $4 million based on the separation-date value, finding that a market-driven decline could not be considered under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a post-separation market-driven decline in value can be considered under s. 5(6)(h).

Given the dramatic decline, the wife's trust claims, and the preservation order, equalizing the properties based on the separation date was unconscionable.

The equalization payment was reduced to $900,000.

The appellant appealed a divorce judgment that awarded sole custody of the parties' biological child to the respondent and determined the respondent's child from a former relationship was a child of the marriage.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by refusing an adjournment to allow him to retain counsel and by misapplying the Child Support Guidelines.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the refusal to adjourn was a proper exercise of discretion given prior adjournments and lack of prejudice.

The Court also found no error in the child support order, noting the appellant failed to cross-examine the biological father on his ability to pay or demonstrate how shared custody provisions were triggered.

The appellant mother appealed a final order regarding child support and retroactive support.

The order provided for $250 per month for one child, terminated support for another, and dismissed a claim for $16,566 in retroactive support.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under section 19(1.2) of the Courts of Justice Act, as the amounts in issue were under $50,000.

The appeal was transferred to the Divisional Court.

The plaintiff and the deceased cohabited for 23 months before the deceased's sudden death.

The deceased had promised to transfer his RRSPs to the plaintiff if they were still living together, but died before changing his will or signing a cohabitation agreement.

The trial judge awarded the plaintiff $1,750,000 based on a constructive trust arising from unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the estate's appeal, finding no unjust enrichment because the benefits the plaintiff received outweighed her contributions.

The court also held that a constructive trust was inappropriate as monetary damages would have sufficed and there was no link between her contributions and the RRSPs.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on consent, ordering that it proceed as per the attached minutes of settlement.

The cross-appeal was dismissed.

The appellant wife appealed a trial judge's spousal support order following a 19-year marriage.

The trial judge had ordered time-limited support with a review order and refused to make support retroactive.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in imposing a review order, refusing retroactive support, and in determining the quantum and duration of support.

The Court increased the support amount and duration, applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines as a cross-check, and set aside the review order.

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his Hague Convention application for the return of his child to the United States.

The mother had moved with the child from Florida to Ontario when the child was two and a half months old.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings that the child was not habitually resident in Florida, that the father was not actually exercising custody rights at the time of the move, and that the father subsequently acquiesced to the child remaining in Ontario.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant husband appealed a divorce judgment ordering him to pay an equalization payment of over $7 million and $35,000 monthly in spousal support.

He challenged the trial judge's findings regarding the ownership of the matrimonial home, the quantum of spousal support, unconscionability under the Family Law Act, and the disbursement of funds held in court.

He also brought a motion to admit fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the motion, finding no error in the trial judge's factual findings or legal conclusions, and noting the fresh evidence could have been discovered with due diligence.

The appellant children's aid society appealed a decision finding a genuine issue for trial in a child protection matter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the society's ex parte order, obtained despite knowing the mother contested the application, and the mother's Parenting Plan raised credibility issues requiring a trial.

The court ordered the trial to be expedited and awarded costs to the respondent.

The appellant husband appealed a motions judge's finding that the parties had reached a settlement agreement regarding the division of their property, including the matrimonial home and the husband's business.

The Court of Appeal found that the motions judge's conclusion was not supported by the evidence, noting that the wife's former solicitor's evidence contradicted the finding.

The appeal was allowed, and the judgment was set aside in its entirety.

The appellant appealed an order finding her in contempt of three court orders regarding the respondent's access to their infant child.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a finding of contempt could not be made beyond a reasonable doubt without the trial of an issue, given the significant conflicting evidence and the fact that access had been properly provided in the four weeks prior to the hearing.

The respondent wife was substantially successful on appeal and sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Court of Appeal held that substantial success alone does not warrant substantial indemnity costs.

Taking into account the different degrees of success, the court awarded the respondent costs of $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant father appealed an order granting him limited, supervised access to his three-year-old son of one visit per year.

The application judge had restricted access due to the father's history of domestic violence, failure to exercise previous access, and the child's young age.

The Court of Appeal upheld the requirement for supervised access to establish a relationship but found one visit per year too restrictive.

The court varied the order to allow the father to exercise supervised access three times per year for a seven-day period each time.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judgment awarding custody of the child to the respondent father.

She argued that the trial judge's comments in chambers and during the trial created a reasonable apprehension of bias and prejudgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while some comments were unfortunate, a reasonable person would not conclude the trial judge had prejudged the issue.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's finding that it was in the best interests of the child for the father to have custody, noting the decision was fully supported by the evidence and the factors in section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act.