Family and Matrimonial Law - ONCA

The appellant appealed the trial judge's monetary award for unjust enrichment, lump sum spousal support, and costs.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's calculation of the unjust enrichment award, which properly accounted for set-offs.

The court also upheld the lump sum spousal support order, noting the trial judge properly weighed its advantages and disadvantages, including the appellant's history of late payments.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's orders regarding child support arrears, equalization, property division, and costs following a divorce.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding errors in the calculation of child support arrears and the equalization payment, which were adjusted accordingly.

The Court also set aside the trial judge's order to sell a commercial property registered to the appellant's father, as the father was not a party to the proceedings and no finding of fraudulent conveyance had been made.

Finally, the trial costs award was reduced to exclude costs incurred prior to a previous consent order and costs from unrelated proceedings.

The husband appealed a trial judgment setting aside a pre-nuptial marriage contract and ordering an equalization payment of $5.3 million, plus spousal and child support.

The trial judge set aside the contract under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act because the husband deliberately failed to disclose the value of his significant business assets, misrepresented his financial position, and interfered with the wife's independent legal advice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing that the husband's conduct warranted setting aside the contract.

The Court also held that a post-separation, market-driven decline in the value of the husband's shares did not justify an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6)(h) of the Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The parties lived in a common law relationship for seven years, during which the respondent performed extensive maintenance and renovation work on properties owned by the appellant.

After separation, the trial judge awarded the respondent compensation for unjust enrichment regarding one property and a 50 percent resulting trust interest in the profits from the sale of another property based on a joint venture agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal and the respondent's cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, but varied the prejudgment interest calculation for the resulting trust property to run from the date of its sale.

The deceased was the sole owner of one life insurance policy and the joint owner, with his wife, of a second policy.

He made inadequate provision for his dependant children.

The children applied for dependants' relief under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The Court of Appeal held that the jointly-owned policy was not caught by s. 72(1)(f) of the SLRA and therefore did not form part of the deceased's estate for the purpose of dependants' relief.

The court also upheld the applications judge's decision to charge the proceeds of the solely-owned policy for the support of the dependant children.

The appellant, who was adopted as an infant, sought to discover the identity of her birth father.

She challenged the constitutionality of the disclosure provisions of the Child and Family Services Act and the Vital Statistics Act, arguing they violated her rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that the provisions did not violate equality rights as they did not make stereotypical assumptions, nor did they infringe section 7, as unconditional disclosure of third-party identifying information is not a principle of fundamental justice.

The appellant's counsel attended court and informed the panel that, on consent, the appeal was to be dismissed as abandoned without costs.

The Court of Appeal ordered the appeal dismissed accordingly.

The appellant appealed an order fixing his child support arrears at $27,171.28, arguing that the motion judge failed to adequately consider his mental health problems and reliance on a disability pension.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge was aware of the medical evidence but correctly concluded that the appellant had not discharged his evidential onus to establish hardship, noting he had paid no support for ten years even when his income permitted.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000.

The appellant wife appealed and the respondent husband cross-appealed the trial judge's equalization payment calculation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in valuing the wife's RRSPs and the husband's pension, and substituted values based on the evidence.

The Court also allowed the cross-appeal, finding the trial judge erred in denying the husband deductions for pre-marriage equity in a home, credit card debts, and costs awards.

The wife was awarded $15,000 in trial costs.

The appellant father appealed an order dismissing his appeal of a motion judge's order granting custody of their son to the respondent mother and ordering child support.

The appellant argued that the Charter applied due to the Office of the Children's Lawyer's refusal to become involved, that the custody request was moot, and that hearing fairness was compromised.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Charter does not apply to private custody disputes, the matter was not moot at the time of the lower court orders, and there was no evidence of unfairness.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent.

The mother appealed a trial judgment ordering shared parenting (joint custody) and equal access time.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, granting the mother sole custody because the parents had a complete communication breakdown and could not cooperate, making joint custody inappropriate.

However, the court upheld the equal access time and child support orders, finding that equal time with both parents remained in the children's best interests.

The mother brought a motion to vary a child support order, seeking increased contribution from the father for post-secondary education expenses for their two adult sons.

The sons had substantial capital assets from gifts.

The motion judge ordered the father to pay table support and a proportionate share of the education expenses, requiring the sons to contribute only from their summer earnings.

The father appealed, arguing the sons should use their capital assets first.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the motion judge erred in failing to consider the extent to which the children should be expected to contribute to their own education expenses out of their capital assets under s. 3(2)(b) and s. 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The mother appealed a trial judgment granting custody of the children to the father.

The trial judge found that the mother engaged in persistent alienating conduct, including moving the children to a different town on the eve of trial, and was unable to support a relationship between the children and their father.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and concluding that the trial judge's decision was supported by expert evidence and the mother's deep-rooted inability to foster the children's relationship with the father.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment, arguing the trial judge misapprehended the date he signed an agreed statement of facts admitting his children were in need of protection, and that an interim custody order was fraudulently obtained.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the date error immaterial as the appellant signed the statement while represented by counsel and his claim of duress was rejected.

The court also found the interim custody order was made on consent while the appellant was represented by counsel, and he had knowledge of it shortly after.

The moving party brought a motion seeking to review or reopen the court's previous disposition of her appeals.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion without an oral hearing, finding a lack of merit and a lack of jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.

The court noted that the proper remedy for dissatisfaction with the disposition of the appeals was to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The court ordered that the moving party may not file further motions in respect of these appeals.

The appellants appealed an order of the motion judge regarding the litigation guardian for the minor plaintiffs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that any potential conflict of interest would not impede the litigation guardian's ability to act in the best interests of the children.

Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action for solicitor's negligence.

The appellant had retained the respondent solicitor to obtain a speedy divorce so he could remarry.

Against the advice of the solicitor and his accountant, the appellant signed a separation agreement prepared by his wife's lawyer because he did not want to risk upsetting his wife and delaying the divorce.

The trial judge found the solicitor met the standard of care and the appellant failed to prove damages.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed an order regarding the equalization of net family property.

She argued that a 1979 agreement excluded the matrimonial home from the calculation and that the respondent's alleged lottery winnings should be included.

The Court of Appeal dismissed these arguments, finding the agreement did not exclude the home and there was no evidence of lottery winnings.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to correct a conceded double-counting error regarding a vehicle, reducing the equalization payment by $10,500.

The appellant wife appealed an order regarding a default divorce judgment.

The Court of Appeal found the motions judge erred in concluding the appellant could seek originating corollary relief despite a final divorce judgment addressing those issues.

The Court applied the three-part test for setting aside the noting of pleadings closed, finding the motion was timely, the appellant had a persistent intention to defend, and there was merit to her claims.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the noting of pleadings closed and specific paragraphs of the default divorce judgment.

The respondent brought a motion to enforce a prior order and to dismiss the appellant's appeal for alleged breaches.

The Court of Appeal declined to dismiss the appeal, finding the facts did not justify such a remedy.

Instead, the court ordered the appeal to be expedited and imposed strict deadlines on the appellant to pay for and file the required transcripts, failing which the respondent could move again to dismiss the appeal.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the respondent.