Family and Matrimonial Law - ONSCDC

The moving party father sought an urgent stay of an interim order granting the responding party mother sole decision-making responsibility regarding their eight-year-old child's medical treatment, pending a motion for leave to appeal.

The mother wished to follow a pediatric endocrinologist's advice to commence treatment for a medical condition, while the father opposed it.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the father failed to establish a serious issue to be determined on the motion for leave to appeal, as there were no conflicting decisions on the legal principles and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's factual findings.

The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured expeditious decision-making in the child's best interests.

The applicant father, residing in Georgia, sought leave to appeal orders granting the respondent mother primary care of their child and requiring the child's return to Ontario.

The father had previously caused the mother's arrest at the US border and retained the child in Georgia in defiance of Ontario court orders.

The Divisional Court refused to schedule an urgent case conference or hear the applicant's procedural motions, holding that he could not seek the assistance of the Ontario courts while actively and defiantly breaching their orders.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order that granted her an adjournment of a family law trial on terms, including the payment of costs thrown away.

A prior case management order prohibited the parties from bringing any further motions without leave.

The Divisional Court held that the prior order remained binding despite the commencement of the trial.

The motion for leave to appeal was stayed pending the applicant obtaining leave to bring the motion or the resumption of the trial.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision striking out his negligence claim against the Family Responsibility Office (FRO).

The appellant alleged that FRO was negligent in handling his child support payments and reporting him to a credit bureau, arguing FRO owed him a duty to reply to his correspondence.

The Divisional Court upheld the Deputy Judge's finding that FRO did not owe a duty of care to the appellant, applying the Cooper v. Hobart framework.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order finding him in contempt of a final parenting order.

The motion judge had temporarily reduced the appellant's parenting time until he complied with the order, which the appellant argued was an impermissible variation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge had jurisdiction to make a temporary variation to facilitate compliance.

The court also upheld the contempt findings regarding unilateral medical decisions and withholding the children, and rejected the appellant's claims of procedural unfairness.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of McPherson J. dated April 5, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,500.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

On consent of the parties, the motion for leave to appeal was withdrawn without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal paragraph 2 of a temporary order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as the responding party failed to upload a costs outline.

The appellant appealed an order for the partition and sale of a home jointly owned with her elderly mother.

The appellant argued the mother had gifted her interest in the home and that the order was interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court held that an order for sale under the Partition Act is a final order, meaning no leave was required.

On the merits, the court found no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's conclusion that the mother retained an interest in the property and that the sale was not oppressive.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant mother appealed a trial decision finding her three children in need of protection and placing them in extended Society care.

The trial judge also reduced the mother's access from weekly to bi-monthly.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the protection finding and disposition, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the risks and the mother's plan.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding access, finding the trial judge erred in law by failing to give full effect to section 17 of the federal Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis Children, Youth and Families, which requires promoting ties to family for Indigenous children.

The access issue was remitted to the trial judge for reconsideration.

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his contempt motion against the respondent mother for failing to comply with court-ordered access.

The motion judge had found the mother's non-compliance was not intentional, as she could not afford travel due to the father's failure to pay ordered costs, and that Quebec, where the child had lived for over three years, was the proper jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the test for contempt or her determination that Ontario was no longer the appropriate jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claim to the proceeds of the sale of his brother and sister-in-law's matrimonial home.

The appellant claimed he advanced $700,000 for the down payment and held a beneficial interest via a trust declaration and oral agreement.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that there was no triable issue regarding the advanced funds, the oral trust violated the Statute of Frauds, and the written trust declaration was unconscionable and coerced from the respondent wife.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The moving party sought the release of a transcript of a case conference held in the context of family law proceedings, which led to a motion for child support.

The motion was unopposed.

The court ordered the release of the transcript and approved the parties' proposed timetable for serving and filing materials on the leave to appeal motion.

The appellant sought to appeal an order discontinuing a trial and directing that a new trial be scheduled before a different judge.

The Divisional Court determined that the order was interlocutory, not final, as it did not dispose of the litigation.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, indicating it was considering dismissing the appeal as an abuse of process for lacking jurisdiction, but provided the appellant an opportunity to make written submissions.

The appellant father appealed a case management judge's decision to adjourn a contested motion brought by the Office of the Children's Lawyer until a recusal motion could be heard.

The case management judge had determined the recusal motion was too long to be heard during COVID-19 protocols, resulting in legal paralysis for the family.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the situation inappropriately left the children in limbo, and directed the Regional Senior Judge to appoint a temporary case management judge until the recusal motion is decided.

The moving party, the 19-year-old daughter of the appellant, brought a motion to be added as a party to her mother's appeal of an extended society care order and access order regarding her two younger siblings.

The court dismissed the motion to intervene in the appeal of the care order, finding she had no legal interest and her position would mirror the appellant's.

However, the court granted her leave to intervene solely on the issue of the access order, as the trial judge had awarded her access, giving her a legal interest in that specific issue.

The moving party mother sought a stay of a final order placing her two children in extended society care, as well as a temporary access order pending her appeal.

She requested increased access and joint decision-making regarding religious participation and schooling during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the mother failed to meet the test for a stay pending appeal and that an increase in access was not in the children's best interests given the statutory framework for extended society care and the children's current circumstances.

The appellant appealed an order dealing with a motion to change child support, challenging the motion judge's findings on imputed income, retroactive child support, special expenses, and costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error of fact or error of law in the motion judge's detailed reasons.

The court also declined to address additional issues raised by the respondent because no cross-appeal was filed.

The respondent was awarded $1,000 in costs for reasonable disbursements as a self-represented litigant.

The mother brought a motion for a stay of an order varying an interim parenting schedule pending her motion for leave to appeal.

The motion judge had varied the schedule to increase the father's parenting time based on observations from a Section 30 assessment report.

The Divisional Court applied the three-part test for a stay and found that the mother failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried, as the motion judge's discretionary decision was well-founded and did not conflict with established case law.

The court also found no irreparable harm to the child and that the balance of convenience favoured the new schedule.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant children's aid society sought judicial review of a tribunal decision that overturned the society's removal of a child from prospective adoptive parents.

The society had removed the child after medical evidence indicated that the child's younger sibling suffered non-accidental trauma consistent with shaken baby syndrome while in the sole care of the prospective adoptive parents.

The court found the tribunal's decision unreasonable because it failed to determine whether the prospective adoptive parents had caused the severe injuries to the sibling, which was highly relevant to assessing the risk of harm to the child.

The tribunal's decision was quashed.