Patrick D. Schmidt

The appellant husband appealed an interlocutory order requiring disclosure of income tax returns and a sworn financial statement in the context of a motion to set aside a 2015 separation agreement that capped his income for support calculations at $1 million per year and included a non-disclosure clause.

The respondent wife moved to quash the appeal, arguing the order was interlocutory and required leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was interlocutory because it did not finally determine the substantive issue of the separation agreement's enforceability, but rather was a procedural disclosure order.

The appeal was quashed and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent a 45% interest in a commercial property via constructive trust, retroactive spousal support, and prejudgment interest on an equalization payment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the limitation period for the unjust enrichment claim was tolled due to the appellant's fraudulent concealment of the property's true ownership.

The court also upheld the awards for retroactive spousal support and prejudgment interest, noting the appellant's history of non-disclosure and failure to pay adequate support.

The applicant brought a motion for a penalty following a previous finding that the respondent was in contempt for breaching various court orders, including failing to provide financial disclosure.

Although the respondent had since provided most of the required disclosure after retaining new counsel, he had also transferred over $53,000 from the sale of a property to his new wife in violation of a court order.

The court found that while the respondent had significantly complied with disclosure orders, his unauthorized transfer of funds warranted a penalty.

The court ordered the respondent to pay a $10,000 fine and a $5,000 penalty to the applicant, but declined to strike his pleadings given his recent efforts to comply and his proposal to pay arrears from the proceeds of a property sale.

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion to adjourn the trial scheduled for January 2016 to April or May 2016.

The moving party argued that an adjournment was necessary due to outstanding expert reports, incomplete questioning, and a pending section 30 assessment report.

The responding party opposed the motion, citing prejudice and the moving party's failure to comply with previous timetables.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party had twice consented to trial dates and failed to comply with the associated timetables, and that further delay would prejudice the responding party and the parties' child.

Following a 16‑day family law trial in which the applicant was successful, the court determined the appropriate costs award after 15 years of litigation.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs exceeding $777,000, arguing the respondent engaged in bad faith conduct and unreasonable litigation behaviour, including misleading evidence about property ownership and income.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the respondent acted in bad faith and repeatedly frustrated the litigation process.

The court held that full recovery costs were appropriate and rejected arguments based on proportionality and inability to pay.

Costs were fixed at $716,711.11 in favour of the applicant.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 17-year cohabitation and 8-year marriage.

They jointly operated an interior design business.

The respondent controlled the finances and used joint business revenues to purchase a commercial property in his own name, falsely claiming for years that it was owned by a corporation.

The court applied the doctrine of fraudulent concealment to toll the limitation period and awarded the applicant a 45% constructive trust interest in the property based on unjust enrichment.

The court also imputed significant income to the respondent, who had diverted rental income to his corporation to avoid support obligations.

The applicant was awarded lump sum retroactive spousal and child support, an equalization payment, and prejudgment interest, with the respondent's share of property sale proceeds to be paid into court as security due to his history of non-payment.

In a family property dispute, the moving party pursued remaining disclosure requests after an earlier motion endorsement deferred certain items to a trial management conference.

The court held that the outstanding requests were either expanded beyond the original requests, duplicative of requests already dismissed, unnecessary in light of prior answers, or effectively addressed through questioning and trial management processes.

The remaining disclosure motion was dismissed in full.

Costs were ordered to the responding party on a partial indemnity basis, with quantum to be fixed by the trial judge.

In a long-running high-conflict family property proceeding, the court continued a trial management conference and fixed a detailed timetable for final disclosure, limited questioning, financial statements, settlement conference materials, and trial preparation.

The respondent was permitted to amend his pleading to advance a claim for occupation rent, but his request for access to the matrimonial home with real estate agents was refused because prior orders barred motions.

The court also directed service of business records notice without redaction if hospital records were to be relied upon, required particulars for alleged defaults under prior orders, and scheduled a focused settlement conference concerning ownership and value of a specific property and the respondent's revenue from all sources.

Costs of the trial management conferences were reserved to the trial judge.

At a trial management conference in a long-running family property and support dispute, the court finalized the principal issues for trial and imposed detailed pre-trial management directions.

The endorsement addressed expert report disclosure, supplementary affidavits of documents, witness lists, possible amendment to add an occupation rent claim, and production of tax and banking records.

The court emphasized that no further motions could be brought and that trial preparation would be closely supervised to ensure readiness for the scheduled 20-day trial.

On a family law motion, the applicant sought distribution of sale proceeds from jointly owned property, an order striking the respondent's pleadings for repeated non-compliance with disclosure and payment orders, and costs for two prior 14(b) motions.

The court found extensive non-compliance with disclosure obligations and prior payment orders, and directed that sale proceeds be distributed to satisfy support-related costs, prior order obligations, reimbursement for a credit card payment, and the outstanding Visa balance.

Applying the Rule 1(8) framework and the appellate caution that pleadings should be struck only in exceptional circumstances, the court declined at this time to strike the respondent's pleadings because other remedies were available and merits adjudication remained preferable.

The applicant was awarded $6,000 in costs for the two 14(b) motions.

At a trial management conference in a long-running family law proceeding, the court addressed trial scheduling, disclosure management, and a request to revisit an earlier order suspending temporary spousal support.

The applicant sought reconsideration and leave to bring a further temporary support motion, but the court refused, emphasizing that the matter was already on the trial list and should proceed expeditiously.

The court nevertheless adjourned the trial start to accommodate counsel's scheduling conflict, imposed strict 20-day trial limits, regulated document copying charges, and set a detailed agenda for the continued trial management conference.

Both parties were barred from bringing further motions before trial.

The appellant challenged an order refusing to stay an Ontario application for spousal support and a beneficial ownership declaration respecting Ontario cottage properties.

Applying the real and substantial connection framework, the court held that Ontario had jurisdiction because the property was located in Ontario and the parties were ordinarily resident in Ontario as well as Florida during the final years of the relationship.

The court further held that the appellant failed to establish that Florida was clearly the more appropriate forum, including because the respondent would lose a legitimate juridical advantage on support under Florida law.

Ontario law was also properly applied to both the unjust enrichment and support claims.

The moving party father brought a motion to terminate child support, incurring nearly $400,000 in legal fees, which was ultimately dismissed.

The responding party mother, who was largely self-represented but utilized unbundled legal services, sought costs.

The court found the father's conduct unreasonable and disproportionate to the financial issues at stake.

The court awarded the mother $90,000 in costs, recognizing the need to compensate self-represented litigants and those using limited scope retainers to ensure access to justice.

In a family law proceeding between unmarried cohabiting parties with two children, the respondent sought disclosure relating to the applicant’s assets and financial circumstances.

The respondent advanced a claim of unjust enrichment based on a joint family venture and requested valuation reports for corporate interests, stock options, and other assets, as well as a completed net family property statement to assess wealth accumulated during cohabitation.

The court held that meaningful disclosure was necessary to evaluate the alleged joint family venture and ordered the applicant to obtain valuations and complete the financial disclosure.

The court relied on the principles from Kerr v. Baranow concerning the sharing of wealth created during cohabitation.

Directions were also given regarding disclosure timelines, questioning, and further case management prior to settlement conference.

The respondent father brought a motion to terminate or vary child support obligations established by prior consent orders, arguing that the parties’ adult child was no longer a dependent after changing schools, residing in Toronto for a period, and receiving student loans and grants.

The court found that the child remained a dependent due to documented learning disabilities and continued pursuit of a first undergraduate degree with a reduced course load.

The temporary change in residence and attendance at another institution did not constitute a change in circumstances warranting termination or reduction of support during the five‑year period contemplated by the consent order.

The court held the father to his contractual commitment to pay $5,000 per month child support and post‑secondary expenses for the agreed five‑year period.

For the sixth and final year of studies, support was recalculated based on the father’s income and set at $2,921 per month until completion of the degree.

A family law motion addressed the interim handling of disputed section 7 expenses held in trust by the respondent’s counsel pending a scheduled trial concerning the termination of child support for an adult child.

The applicant intended to seek dismissal or stay of the respondent’s motion to change for alleged non-compliance with a prior court order requiring continued payment of child support and post‑secondary costs.

The court considered the potential prejudice to both parties, noting the possibility that the respondent had substantially overpaid child support and might be unable to recover any overpayment if the funds were released.

Finding the respondent’s proposed alternatives reasonable and fair, the court ordered that the disputed funds remain in counsel’s trust account pending the outcome of the trial.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $3,500, payable after judgment following the hearing.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their joint venture action against the respondents.

The individual appellant had commenced the action while she was a discharged bankrupt, but the cause of action arose before her bankruptcy and was not disclosed to her trustee.

The motion judge found the claim was a nullity and refused to exercise equitable jurisdiction to regularize the proceeding due to the appellant's failure to disclose the asset.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's refusal to grant equitable relief given the appellant's non-disclosure and the subsequent delay.

The parties separated after 23 years of marriage.

The husband, a tenured professor, had custody of their three children.

The wife, a contract teacher, made direct financial contributions to the children's expenses but did not pay periodic child support.

The husband appealed the trial judge's dismissal of his claim for retrospective child support and the award of prospective spousal support to the wife for a limited term of five years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding child support, finding the trial judge did not err in considering the wife's direct contributions.

The Court allowed the cross-appeal in part, varying the spousal support award to $950 per month payable indefinitely, recognizing the economic merger of the parties' interests over the long marriage.

The appellant husband appealed a finding of bad faith made by the motion judge in a family law disclosure motion, but did not appeal the underlying costs order itself.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under section 19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, an appeal lies only from an order, not from a finding alone.

Following a successful appeal and cross-appeal, the appellant sought costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario ordered the respondent to pay the appellant's costs fixed in the amount of $20,000, inclusive of GST and disbursements.