Robert John Michael Ballance

The applicant husband brought a motion for partial summary judgment to determine if a lump sum disability payment received by the respondent wife was excluded from her net family property for equalization purposes.

The court found that the respondent failed to meet her onus to prove that any portion of the settlement related to post-separation payments or that the funds could be traced into her interest in the jointly owned cottage property in a manner that would allow for an exclusion under the Family Law Act.

The motion for partial summary judgment was granted, concluding that the respondent had not proven the claimed exclusion.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appellant's appeal and subsequently issued a costs endorsement.

The appellant conceded that the respondent was entitled to costs.

The court determined that this was not an exceptional case warranting full indemnity costs and awarded the respondent $5,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The appellant challenged a trial judge's decision that the parties' religious marriage ceremony in Tennessee was a valid marriage under s. 31 of Ontario's Marriage Act.

The appeal raised questions about whether s. 31 applies to marriages solemnized outside Ontario and to purely religious ceremonies where no steps were taken to obtain a licence or register the marriage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that s. 31 can validate marriages solemnized outside Ontario if the parties intended to create a formally binding legal marriage and did not deliberately fail to comply with legal requirements.

The court emphasized the public policy favoring marriage validity and found the parties' subjective belief and subsequent conduct supported the trial judge's finding of intent to comply.

The applicant sought equalization of net family properties, which the respondent contested, asserting they were not married.

The court conducted a trial of an issue to determine the marital status of the parties.

A religious ceremony took place in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1998, after which the parties lived as husband and wife in Ontario for over 16 years, raising three children, despite not obtaining a marriage licence.

The court applied Ontario's Marriage Act, s. 31, finding that the marriage was solemnized in good faith, intended to be in compliance with the law, and followed by cohabitation as a married couple.

Consequently, the marriage was deemed valid under Ontario law, establishing the applicant as a "spouse" for equalization purposes under the Family Law Act.

Respondent parents brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss a child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society following the sudden unexpected death of their six-week-old infant.

The Society sought to establish that the surviving child was in need of protection due to alleged inadequate supervision and neglect.

The court found that the evidence did not establish a genuine issue requiring trial.

The surviving child was in her own bedroom and could be heard by the sleeping parent.

The fact that the child may have been awake and unattended for several hours while the parent slept, and was not fed or changed during that period, was insufficient to establish a real and likely risk of physical harm.

The motion was granted and the application dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interim family court order requiring the parties’ child to return to Essex County pending a custody determination, and also sought a stay of that order.

The court considered the test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the governing principles for interim mobility disputes, including the best interests of the child and the maximum contact principle.

The court held that the applicant failed to establish conflicting authority or good reason to doubt the correctness of the order.

The motion judge’s decision was fact-driven and aimed at preserving meaningful relationships with both parents until a custody assessment could be completed.

Leave to appeal and the request for a stay were dismissed.