5 total
Custody and police enforcement orders rescinded where alienated teenage children consistently refused contact with father.
The mother and the Chief of Police brought motions to change a final custody order that granted the father sole custody of two teenage sons and required police enforcement to compel the sons to attend a reunification program.
The sons, aged 16 and 18, had consistently refused contact with the father and actively evaded police enforcement.
The court found a material change in circumstances, removed the police enforcement clause, and rescinded the custody order entirely, concluding that it was impossible to enforce and no longer in the children's best interests.
No new custody order was made, leaving the sons to determine their own residential and contact arrangements.
The children and the Chief of Police were represented by separate counsel on the motions.
Costs awarded to the more successful party on the appeal.
This was a costs decision following a family law appeal concerning custody, relocation, and trial fairness.
The appellant father succeeded only in having the matter returned to the Ontario Court of Justice for clarification and amendment of the final order, but failed in his primary objective of overturning the relocation and custody result.
The court held that the respondent mother's success on the more substantial issues was greater in light of the issues involved, the work done, and the time spent.
Costs of $13,500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes were awarded to the respondent mother, payable within 60 days.
Mother granted permission to relocate with children to Washington DC; move found in children's best interests.
The mother, who had sole custody of the parties' two children, brought a motion to change a final consent order to permit her to relocate with the children to the Washington DC area to live with her fiancé.
The father opposed the move and brought a cross-motion to adjust child support.
The court applied the established relocation framework and found that a material change in circumstances had occurred.
The court determined that the move was in the children's best interests, noting their strong bond with the mother and her fiancé, their expressed preference to move, and the mother's role as the primary parent.
The mother's motion to relocate was granted, and temporary child support was ordered pending a reference to finalize the amounts based on imputed income.
Constructive trust claims for land in family law are governed by a ten-year limitation period.
The applicant in a family law case claimed a constructive trust in the respondent's house arising from an alleged 13-year cohabitation.
The respondent moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that a constructive trust claim for an ownership interest in land is an 'action to recover land' governed by the ten-year limitation period under s. 4 of the Real Property Limitations Act.
The court also noted that if the Real Property Limitations Act did not apply, there would be a gap in the legislative scheme for family law constructive trust claims.
Granny flat included in matrimonial home; pro rata approach applied to trace mixed gift funds.
The parties sought determination of several issues regarding the calculation of net family property, including whether a 'granny flat' occupied by the wife's mother formed part of the matrimonial home, whether an investment account was a gift from the husband's father, and whether the wife was a joint owner of that account.
The court held that the granny flat was part of the matrimonial home as it was ordinarily occupied by the family.
The court also found that the investment account was a gift to the husband, but that he subsequently made an immediate gift of a joint interest to the wife by signing a joint account agreement.
The court applied a pro rata approach to trace the remaining gift funds in the mixed investment account.
