Family and Matrimonial Law - ONCA

The appellant brought a tort claim against his former wife following the final settlement of their matrimonial litigation.

The motion judge dismissed the claim, finding the appellant was precluded from proceeding.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, noting the appellant knew all necessary facts at the time of the matrimonial settlement and failed to pursue the claim or reserve his right to do so.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her claim for equalization of net family property and orders to set aside two separation agreements.

The motion judge had found her claim was statute-barred under s. 7(3) of the Family Law Act and refused to grant an extension of time under s. 2(8).

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in his application of the s. 2(8) test, particularly regarding apparent grounds for relief, good faith delay, and substantial prejudice.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment was set aside, and the extension of time was granted.

The husband appealed the trial judge's calculation of the equalization payment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that monies advanced by the husband's late mother were not a loan.

However, the Court found the trial judge erred in excluding a portion of the wife's jewellery from her net family property, as the wife failed to discharge her onus under s. 4(3) of the Family Law Act to prove the value of the jewellery she claimed was gifted by relatives.

The appeal was allowed in part to include the full value of the jewellery in the wife's assets.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice regarding a child protection matter.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal to a limited extent, ordering that the ongoing status review hearing proceed by way of an expedited new trial before a different judge, with the status quo remaining in the interim.

The appellant, facing deportation to St. Lucia, obtained an unopposed custody order and a non-removal order for her children under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The non-removal order was intended to trigger a statutory stay of her deportation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The respondent Ministers successfully appealed the non-removal order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, holding that family courts should not issue non-removal orders solely to frustrate federal immigration removal orders where there is no genuine family law dispute.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his fraudulent conveyance action against the respondent.

The appellant sought to set aside a 1997 transfer of the matrimonial home from the judgment debtor to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the transfer was part of a comprehensive settlement following marriage breakdown, not made with intent to defeat creditors, and was supported by good consideration in good faith.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant failed to appear for the hearing of his appeal.

His counsel had been removed from the record, he had left the country, and there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned and awarded costs to the respondent on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $20,335.62.

The appellant appealed a judgment regarding child support and section 7 expenses.

The appellant argued that the motion judge erred in the exercise of his discretion on four issues, including the consideration of student loans in the section 7 analysis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge carefully balanced the parties' interests, made no error in principle, and was entitled to consider student loans in the circumstances.

The appellant wife appealed an order refusing her the opportunity to ask the respondent husband's father certain questions and directing him to produce certain documents during pretrial proceedings.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding that the order was interlocutory in nature and therefore outside its jurisdiction, as it did not finally determine the husband's interest in his father's company.

The appellant appealed an order for retroactive spousal support.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the issue was not properly raised before the motion judge, the motion judge failed to consider relevant factors for retroactive support, and there were palpable and overriding errors regarding the parties' incomes.

The order for retroactive spousal support was set aside and the issue was remitted to the trial judge.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding child custody, property division, extraordinary expenses, and spousal support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's rulings, which were supported by the evidence.

The court noted concerns about the extraordinary expenses arrangement but declined to intervene given the currently modest amounts involved.

The appellant father appealed a trial judge's decision varying support orders.

The trial judge found that a decrease in the father's income constituted a material change in circumstances and adapted the parties' agreement to reflect this decrease while maintaining its spirit.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the result and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed an order terminating her spousal support.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's analysis of the factors under section 15 of the Divorce Act, noting the short duration of the marriage, the parties' respective assets, and the absence of children.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

The appellant brought a motion to review an order of a single judge of the Court of Appeal, which had dismissed her motion for interim relief pending appeal.

The requested relief included enforcement of orthodontic fees, a non-harassment order, and a contempt order.

The Court of Appeal declined to interfere, noting that the respondent undertook to pay the orthodontic fees, the non-harassment order should be sought in the Superior Court, and the contempt request was abandoned.

The motion for review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a judgment dealing with divorce, custody and access, spousal and child support, and the division of net family property.

The appellant's principal ground of appeal was that the trial judge erred by not ordering joint custody of the two children.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the order granting sole custody to the respondent was amply supported by the record and that there was no basis to interfere with the trial judge's comprehensive reasons on the other issues.

The appellant appealed a restraining order granted by the Superior Court of Justice, arguing that a breach of natural justice occurred during the hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of natural justice, as the appellant was permitted to give viva voce evidence, was properly served with the application, and the applications judge reviewed his materials.

The Court noted that the appellant could apply to vary the restraining order regarding his attendance at his children's school events.

The appeal was dismissed with costs of $1,500 awarded to the respondent.

The respondent mother abducted her three children and fled to Mexico, fearing she would lose all access to them at an upcoming custody hearing.

She was acquitted at trial of abduction in contravention of a custody order after the trial judge left the statutory defence of necessity to the jury.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding there was no air of reality to the necessity defence because the anticipated loss of access through a lawful court order did not constitute 'imminent harm' and the respondent had reasonable legal alternatives available.

The appellant mother, a member of the Cree First Nations, appealed a decision denying her access to her six-year-old child, who had been a Crown ward in non-Indigenous foster care since she was three months old.

The mother sought access to instruct the child about her Cree culture and heritage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the mother's intentions were positive, the proposed access would disrupt the child's secure and loving foster family unit and would not be in the child's best interests.

The father appealed a trial judgment regarding child support arrears and custody, while the mother cross-appealed a condition requiring her to relocate to Ottawa to retain custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the father's appeal, upholding the reduction in support arrears and the award of custody to the mother.

The Court allowed the mother's cross-appeal, striking down the condition that she return to Ottawa, finding that uprooting the children from their established environment in Stoney Creek was not in their best interests.

The respondent moved to quash an appeal from a motions judge's refusal to grant judgment on an allegedly accepted offer to settle under Rule 49.09, arguing the order was interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to quash, holding that the order was final because it fully and finally disposed of the new lis created by the alleged settlement.