Paul K. Steckley

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding spousal support, child support, and section 7 expenses.

He argued the trial judge erred by imputing income based on his rental income without deducting the expenses incurred to earn that income, and by failing to apply the shared custody provisions of the Child Support Guidelines.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge's failure to address the rental expenses contained in the appellant's tax returns constituted a significant misapprehension of evidence and an error in principle.

The court ordered a new trial to determine the appellant's income, spousal support, child support, and section 7 expenses.

The respondent brought a motion to change a support order within an enforcement proceeding in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The applicant sought dismissal of the motion for lack of jurisdiction.

The court found that the Ontario Court of Justice lacks jurisdiction to change an order made in the Superior Court of Justice and dismissed the motion.

The court also identified multiple procedural flaws in the respondent's motion, including improper style of cause, improper naming of parties, and failure to serve the Director of the Family Responsibility Office.

The court awarded costs to the applicant but reduced the amount in light of the respondent's self-represented status and language barriers.

A 14-day trial concerning custody, access, child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses for a child born to unmarried parties who participated in two Islamic marriage ceremonies but were never legally married under Canadian law.

The applicant sought sole custody based on fears that the respondent would abscond with the child to Morocco.

The respondent sought sole custody and claimed child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses.

The court awarded sole custody to the respondent, finding the applicant's fears of abduction were unfounded and that the applicant was controlling and dismissive of the respondent's role as mother.

The court also found the parties were spouses under section 29(b) of the Family Law Act based on their relationship of some permanence and their shared child, and awarded spousal support accordingly.

The applicant sought a stay of an interim family arbitration award permitting the respondent to list and sell the matrimonial home prior to trial.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to grant a stay pending an appeal of the arbitration award and concluded that jurisdiction arose under s. 134(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Applying the RJR‑MacDonald test, the court found the appeal raised a serious issue regarding whether the arbitrator failed to address relevant grounds relating to the applicant’s claimed beneficial interest in the property through constructive or resulting trust.

The court determined that an immediate sale could cause irreparable harm by undermining the applicant’s proprietary claims and development potential of the property.

The balance of convenience narrowly favoured preserving the status quo pending the appeal or arbitration trial.

Following a family law trial, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought full recovery of trial costs, while the respondent requested that each party bear their own costs.

Applying s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the applicant was significantly more successful overall, particularly on the key issue of equalization of net family property.

The court also found that the respondent’s conduct, including providing incomplete and misleading information regarding the valuation of a business interest, unnecessarily prolonged the litigation.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $35,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following a divorce trial, the court addressed retroactive child support, a restraining order request, and equalization of net family property.

Retroactive child support was denied because the adult child was not shown to be a dependent within the meaning of the Divorce Act or Family Law Act after age 18.

The court also terminated an existing restraining order, finding insufficient evidence of reasonable fear for personal safety.

In determining equalization, the court rejected parts of the respondent’s financial evidence due to credibility concerns and incomplete disclosure, particularly regarding a family aviation business.

Relying on evidence of a near‑contemporaneous offer to purchase corporate assets, the court valued the respondent’s business interest and ordered an equalization payment to the applicant.