Family and Matrimonial Law - ONCA

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding child and spousal support following the breakdown of a 22-year relationship.

The trial judge imputed minimum wage income to the respondent, who had taken voluntary early retirement, and declined to order lump sum spousal support.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decisions on imputed income and lump sum support, finding no error in principle.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to eliminate the appellant's obligation to pay retroactive child support, to order ongoing periodic spousal support, and to set aside the trial costs award.

The appellant appealed an order refusing to grant final orders for spousal support and equalization based solely on allegations after the respondent failed to defend.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the trial judge that allegations alone are inadequate and that evidence must be presented at trial to support the requested relief.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding the equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by failing to allow a deduction for reasonably foreseeable future legal costs related to ongoing litigation at the date of separation, allowing a $300,000 deduction.

The Court also corrected calculation errors in retroactive spousal support and adjusted ongoing spousal support to $1,400 per month.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the equalization payment and spousal support amounts reduced.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict awarding damages under the Family Law Act following a fatal motor vehicle accident.

They argued the trial judge erred by failing to correct inflammatory comments by the respondents' counsel, allowing a loss of income claim without actuarial evidence, and that the $200,000 award to the deceased's mother for loss of care, guidance and companionship was grossly excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the jury addresses and the loss of income claim, finding the trial judge's instructions were sufficient and actuarial evidence is not strictly required.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part by reducing the mother's award for loss of care, guidance and companionship to $125,000, finding the original amount exceeded the permissible range.

The appellant appealed an order regarding child support for her daughter.

She argued the application judge erred in characterizing an $8.6 million payment to the respondent as a retiring allowance rather than severance, in treating stock option payments, in failing to impute income for property transfers to the respondent's wife, in failing to gross up income for UK tax rates, and in denying private school expenses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings and application of the Child Support Guidelines.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's dismissal of his motion to vary spousal support, terminate daycare expenses, and reapportion section 7 child support expenses.

The appellant argued that the respondent mother's transition from a student to full-time employment constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the mother's employment was foreseeable and necessary given the father's continuous failure to meet his support obligations.

The court also upheld the motion judge's temporary apportionment of section 7 expenses based on the parties' 2006 tax returns, noting the father's failure to make full and frank financial disclosure.

The appellants appealed an order making their three-year-old daughter a Crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption.

They sought to reverse the decision based on fresh evidence of the mother's progress in developing parenting skills and her ability to care for her youngest child in Quebec.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence but dismissed the appeal, finding that the child's best interests required continuity of care in her current foster placement, where she was thriving and had developed strong bonds.

The appellant father appealed a trial judgment awarding sole custody of the children to the respondent mother and ordering him to pay child support based on an imputed income.

The appellant argued that procedural defects undermined the fairness of the trial and that the trial judge was biased against him.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had ample opportunity to retain counsel and respond to the case, and that the trial judge demonstrated patience and no bias.

A two-year-old child suffered a catastrophic brain injury after falling from a fifth-floor apartment window with a broken screen.

The jury awarded over $12.9 million in damages, including maximum non-pecuniary damages and future care costs exceeding the plaintiffs' highest suggested scenario.

The landlord appealed the damage awards and several evidentiary rulings, including the admission of subsequent remedial measures and expert witness qualifications.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on liability and damages, finding the jury's awards supported by evidence and the trial judge's evidentiary rulings largely correct or harmless.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding a $350,000 costs premium payable by the landlord, reducing it to $50,000 based on recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, while allowing a cross-appeal to charge the balance of the premium to the child's award.

The self-represented appellant appealed an order dismissing her 14B motion and prohibiting her from bringing further proceedings without leave of a judge.

The motion judge had dismissed the motion because there was no underlying proceeding before the court.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's materials incomprehensible and agreeing that a motion cannot be brought in a litigation void.

The parties signed a separation agreement providing for joint custody, which explicitly stated that the mother's temporary return to China would not constitute a material change in circumstances.

While the mother was in China, the father obtained an ex parte order for sole custody by misrepresenting her address and failing to bring the separation agreement to the court's attention.

The motion judge set aside the ex parte order and awarded full indemnity costs.

The father appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision to set aside the order due to lack of proper notice, lack of material change, and failure to provide the court with all information.

The appellant husband appealed an order dismissing his appeal from a motion judge's decision to accept jurisdiction over child custody and access under s. 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondent wife had fled Dubai with the child, alleging physical and mental abuse.

The motion judge found that the child would be at serious risk of harm if returned to Dubai.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings of abuse and risk of harm, despite concluding that an Amnesty International report should not have been admitted into evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's finding of a material change in circumstances regarding spousal support.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred.

The Court fixed the spousal support arrears at $6,000, payable in equal monthly instalments over six years, and awarded costs to the appellant.

The mother appealed an order refusing to return her six-year-old child to California under the Hague Convention.

The motion judge had found that the mother and child's uncertain immigration status in the United States would place the child in an intolerable situation and that returning the child would be contrary to public policy.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that uncertain immigration status does not meet the high threshold of an intolerable situation under Article 13(b) of the Convention.

The court ordered the child returned to the mother in Los Angeles, provided United States authorities permit entry.

The appellants, foster parents of three young siblings, appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing their application for an order granting them residence of the children pending the final determination of child protection proceedings.

The children had been apprehended over two years prior, but no protection finding had yet been made.

The foster parents argued that the inordinate delay created a gap in the Child and Family Services Act, justifying the Superior Court's exercise of its parens patriae jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the delay did not bring the matter outside the ambit of the legislation, and that the Ontario Court of Justice retained jurisdiction to determine the children's best interests, including the impact of the delay and their attachments to the foster parents.

The appellant father appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay child support based on an imputed annual income of $30,000.

The father had quit his job as a tool and die maker and enrolled as a full-time university student.

The Court of Appeal held that 'intentionally' under section 19(1)(a) of the Child Support Guidelines does not require bad faith or a specific intent to evade support obligations.

The court upheld the finding that the father was intentionally under-employed but reduced the imputed income to $16,500, reflecting his capacity to work part-time while studying.

The court also varied the retroactive support period to account for times the father provided childcare and was on academic probation.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judgment that ordered joint custody and unsupervised access to the respondent father.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made several material errors, including excluding evidence predating a prior consent order, ordering joint custody despite finding a change in custody would traumatize the children and the parents could not communicate, and ignoring the evidence of the court-appointed therapist who recommended no access for two years.

The appeal was allowed, the custody and access orders were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing her solicitor negligence claim against her former family law lawyer.

She alleged the lawyer negligently consented to a non-depletion order, preventing her from selling the matrimonial home at the peak of the real estate market.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the lawyer did not consent to the order, the order could have been varied if a sale was desired, and the appellant did not actually intend to sell the home at that time.

Following the release of its decision on the appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario received and considered written submissions on costs.

The court awarded costs of the appeal to the respondent, fixed at $4,500 inclusive of GST.

The parties separated after eight years of marriage.

The husband's income doubled to over $4.1 million annually after separation.

The trial judge declined to award the Guidelines table amount of over $65,000 per month for four children, instead awarding $16,000 per month under s. 4 based on the family's modest pre-separation lifestyle.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the table amount was inappropriate but found the trial judge erred by failing to adequately consider the post-separation increase in the husband's income and the reasonableness of the wife's proposed budget.

The Court of Appeal increased the child support to $32,000 per month and increased the required life insurance coverage to $2 million.