Family and Matrimonial Law - ONCA

The appellant appealed an order dispensing with the requirement for his signature on a listing agreement for the sale of the matrimonial home, and the refusal of an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge did not exercise his discretion unreasonably in refusing the adjournment.

The appellant suffered no prejudice because the sale proceeds were ordered to be held in trust pending agreement or further court order.

The court stayed the order for 14 days to allow the appellant to remove his personal belongings.

The applicant mother sought an extension of time to appeal a summary judgment finding her children in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act, appeals from such child protection orders lie to the Divisional Court, not the Court of Appeal.

The appellant and respondent entered into a co-habitation agreement acknowledging the appellant's $61,000 net equity in their home.

After separation, the appellant obtained a consent judgment for the amount.

The respondent subsequently made an assignment in bankruptcy and was discharged.

The appellant appealed the discharge, arguing for the first time that the $61,000 was a contingent obligation for future spousal support that should survive bankruptcy under s. 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the claim was a transparent attempt to shelter the debt from bankruptcy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming the agreement clearly related to the appellant's net equity in the matrimonial home.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment upholding a prenuptial agreement.

She argued the agreement should be set aside due to inadequate financial disclosure, lack of independent legal advice, duress, and a change in circumstances post-marriage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had adequate knowledge of the respondent's finances, received proper independent legal advice, and was not under duress when signing the contract.

The court also upheld the trial judge's evidentiary ruling admitting a contemporaneous memorandum.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding family property.

The Court of Appeal found that there was a misunderstanding before the lower court and the family property issue had not been finally disposed of.

The appeal was dismissed, but the appellant was granted leave to seek to set aside a previously granted stay of proceedings.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for a declaration of paternity and access to a child.

The trial judge had dismissed both the appellant's application and a cross-application by another man, finding the evidence of all parties highly unreliable and noting the mother's refusal to permit DNA testing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's adverse inferences regarding the DNA refusal were reasonable, the reasons for rejecting the appellant's credibility were clear from the record, and any error regarding privileged CAS records would not have affected the outcome.

The deceased died intestate and his separated wife was appointed estate trustee.

The respondent, claiming to be the deceased's common law spouse, sought a declaration of dependency and support under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The estate trustee served a notice of contestation under the Estates Act and later sought a declaration that the respondent had abandoned her claims by failing to meet the limitation period in the Estates Act.

The Court of Appeal held that the respondent's claims for declaratory relief were not a 'claim or demand' within the meaning of the Estates Act, which applies only to creditors' claims.

The limitation period under the Succession Law Reform Act governed the respondent's claims.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant's counsel indicated that his client had left the country and failed to provide instructions or a retainer despite being advised of the hearing date.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned, with no costs.

Following an appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement fixing costs in favour of the successful respondent in the amount of $11,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The father appealed a child support order, and the mother cross-appealed for retroactive child support back to August 2000, when the father's income increased but he failed to disclose it.

The cross-appeal was reserved pending the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in D.B.S. v. S.R.G. Applying the D.B.S. framework, the Court of Appeal found that the application judge failed to place sufficient emphasis on the father's blameworthy conduct in breaching court orders and failing to disclose his income.

The cross-appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant husband appealed an order approving an agreement of purchase and sale for a property and granting a vesting order to the purchaser.

The Court of Appeal denied the appellant's request for an adjournment to retain counsel.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings and concluding that the appeal was moot because the property had already vested in the purchaser.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that upheld a separation agreement.

The Court of Appeal assumed without deciding that the trial judge erred regarding the limitation period, but dismissed the appeal on the basis that the separation agreement was not unconscionable.

The uncontradicted evidence showed the respondent had assumed $112,000 in joint debts, resulting in a monthly deficit, justifying the agreement's terms.

The Court of Appeal reviewed written submissions regarding the costs of an appeal.

The court declined to award costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

Costs of the appeal were fixed in favour of the respondent at $12,500 inclusive of GST and disbursements.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay $8,000 per month in spousal support following a 23-year marriage.

Prior to the appeal, the appellant wilfully defaulted on his support obligations, accumulating over $50,000 in arrears.

The Court of Appeal noted it could dismiss the appeal for non-compliance but chose to hear it on the merits.

The court upheld the trial judge's findings regarding the appellant's income and the decision not to impute income to the respondent due to her ongoing responsibilities caring for their special needs children.

The appeal was dismissed, and the spousal support order was affirmed.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings due to a long history of delay.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion, noting there was no material to support any other conclusion.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant husband appealed an order dismissing his application to vary a support order and appointing the respondent wife as an equitable receiver of his pension benefits to satisfy support and equalization obligations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the variation application, finding the husband's early retirement was voluntary.

However, the Court set aside the appointment of the wife as an equitable receiver, holding that the applicable pension legislation prohibits the enforcement of an equalization order against pension benefits.

The Court also found the appointment unnecessary for the support obligation, as the pension board was already diverting funds at source.

The appellant appealed an order of the Divisional Court regarding the partition of property.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the standard to refuse partition under s. 2 of the Partition Act requires malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct, as established in Silva v. Silva.

The court agreed with the Divisional Court that the appellant failed to demonstrate such conduct.

An alternative argument regarding child support under s. 32 of the Family Law Act was dismissed as it was not raised before the motions judge and lacked an evidentiary record.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $7,500.

The appellant mother previously succeeded in an appeal permitting her to move from Ottawa to Oakville with her daughter and granting her sole legal custody.

The respondent father subsequently requested the court amend the judgment regarding custody, arguing it had not been contested.

The Court of Appeal affirmed its previous order granting sole custody to the mother, finding that joint custody requires a high degree of cooperation which was not present on the record.

The court also awarded costs to the appellant, fixed at $20,000 plus disbursements, taking into account the additional access costs the respondent would incur due to the move.

The appellant appealed an order precluding him from contesting the respondent's financial claims due to his blatant disregard for court orders, specifically his refusal to make financial disclosure.

The Court of Appeal upheld the preclusion regarding financial claims and found his claim for custody unrealistic, as he had not seen the nine-year-old child in almost five years.

However, the Court modified the order to allow the appellant to maintain his answer to the counter-petition solely on the question of access.

The parties separated in 1989.

The husband, a disbarred lawyer who had been incarcerated for fraud, brought a claim for equalization of net family property in 1997, two years after the limitation period expired.

He moved for an extension of time under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act.

The motions judge dismissed the motion, finding the husband did not meet the requirements of good faith and lack of substantial prejudice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the husband's appeal, finding that he failed to show apparent grounds for relief given the wife's overwhelming claim for an unequal division, and that his delay was not incurred in good faith.