Ryan M. Kniznik

The appellants appealed a mistrial ordered by the trial judge in a civil fraud proceeding within a matrimonial context.

The trial judge declared a mistrial after thirteen days of evidence, citing the impact of extensive delay as the trial would have to continue on an installment basis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly exercised her discretion and her decision was entitled to great deference.

The court provided directions for the new trial to minimize further delay, including preserving the evidence and rulings from the mistrial.

The parties engaged in mediation-arbitration for family law matters.

The arbitrator awarded retroactive child support after finding the respondent misrepresented his income.

The appeal judge overturned the award, finding the arbitrator erred by not conducting a D.B.S. analysis.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding the appeal judge applied the wrong test for sufficiency of reasons and erred by disallowing the award without performing the analysis or remitting it.

The matter was referred back to the arbitrator to determine if D.B.S. applies.

The court also refused to hear the respondent's submissions due to his deliberate misconduct in failing to pay costs, child support, and disclose tax returns.

The respondent sought to set aside the registration of a child support order from the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida dated August 22, 2012.

The respondent argued that the registration should be set aside on grounds of lack of proper notice, lack of reasonable opportunity to be heard, lack of jurisdiction, and that the order was contrary to public policy in Ontario.

The court found that while the respondent had proper notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and that the Florida court had jurisdiction, the Florida order was contrary to public policy in Ontario because it imposed child support obligations significantly higher than would have been ordered under Ontario law, and because the applicant should have pursued a variation application under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act rather than commencing a fresh proceeding in Florida.

The registration was set aside and the original Ontario order was varied.

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his motion to stay Ontario family law proceedings regarding custody of the parties' child.

The mother had moved from Indiana to Ontario while pregnant, and the child was born in Ontario.

The Indiana court had previously granted the father custody of the unborn child.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that Ontario had jurisdiction under s. 22 of the Children's Law Reform Act, as the child was physically present in Ontario, substantial evidence was available there, and the balance of convenience favoured Ontario.

The appeal was dismissed.