Sage Harvey

The appellant appealed a trial judge's finding that the parties separated on January 1, 2020, rather than March 14, 2020, for the purposes of equalization and spousal support.

The appellant argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors of fact and misapplied the Kassabian factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's factual findings were available on the record and that he properly treated the Kassabian factors as guiding principles rather than a checklist.

The appellant challenged a decision declining to enforce a pre‑marriage agreement and ordering an equalization payment following the parties’ separation.

The application judge concluded the document did not qualify as a valid domestic agreement under the Family Law Act and, in any event, should be set aside under s. 56(4).

The agreement was found to be unclear, failing to identify the property to which it applied or address equalization, and the respondent did not understand its nature and consequences.

The Court of Appeal held these findings were open to the application judge on the evidentiary record and were supported by credibility assessments.

No error of law, principle, or palpable and overriding factual error was established.

The applicant brought a summary judgment motion seeking enforcement of an accepted offer to settle dated July 15, 2022, which the respondent Kevin Niessen accepted on September 8, 2023.

The offer included an equalization payment of $950,000 to be satisfied through transfer of property.

The respondent failed to pay the equalization payment within the required 90-day period.

The applicant also sought declarations regarding beneficial ownership of properties and enforcement of the equalization payment against properties owned by Rita Niessen and 20 Valley Communities Inc. The court found that the respondent had engaged in a pattern of asset transfers and encumbrances to avoid satisfying the equalization payment, including fraudulent transfer of jointly-owned property.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the applicant, enforcing the settlement terms and declaring the respondent to be the beneficial owner of the disputed properties.

In a family law matter involving a 42-year marriage, the applicant husband brought a motion for partition and sale of two jointly owned matrimonial properties in Toronto.

The respondent wife opposed the motion, arguing that granting it would prejudice her family law rights, particularly her claim for exclusive possession, and that the husband's incomplete financial disclosure regarding alleged foreign assets in India warranted delaying the sale.

The wife also raised concerns about her vulnerability as a senior citizen with health challenges and limited income.

The court granted the husband's motion for partition and sale, finding that the wife failed to meet her onus of establishing sufficient reason to refuse the sale.

The court also dismissed the wife's separate motion for financial disclosure without prejudice, finding it was improperly brought on the same motion day as the partition motion.

This decision concerns an urgent motion brought by the father, Keven Moniz, seeking the immediate return of funds removed by the mother, Diane Filipe, from joint accounts following separation.

The court reviews the parties' financial circumstances, the history of their relationship, and the competing submissions regarding the urgency and fairness of the requested relief.

The court orders the mother to pay the father $75,000 as a partial repayment of his share of the joint savings, with further funds to be held in trust pending future proceedings.

Costs are awarded to the father, with a portion set off against a previous order.

The applicant father sought the return of his son to Mexico under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, alleging wrongful retention by the respondent mother in Ontario.

The respondent opposed, claiming a grave risk of harm under Article 13(b) due to the applicant's alleged abusive conduct and the inadequacy of the Mexican justice system.

The court found that the Article 13(b) exception did not apply, as the alleged domestic violence was dated and not severe enough to meet the high threshold, and the Mexican legal system was deemed capable of protecting the child and mother.

The father's application was granted, ordering the child's return to Mexico with specified undertakings.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought two protection applications concerning children Iz (6 years old) and J (5 months old), both in the society's temporary care.

The applications alleged the mother's substance misuse, neglect, inadequate supervision, unstable housing, and inability to meet the children's needs, including special needs, alongside concerns related to the disappearance and death of another child, Nv.

The mother sought dismissal of the application for J or, alternatively, a 6-month supervision order for both children in her care, with access.

The court found J to be in need of protection, citing overwhelming evidence of risk of harm due to the mother's serious lack of judgment, dishonesty, and chaotic lifestyle, particularly concerning Nv's death.

The court dismissed the mother's request for a supervision order and access, finding her unreliable and her plan inadequate.

Both children were placed in the extended society care of the Children's Aid Society, with an order for sibling access between Iz and J, and with their other siblings R and A in Peel CAS care.

The respondent wife brought a motion to strike the applicant husband's application due to his repeated failure to comply with multiple disclosure orders in their divorce proceedings concerning financial matters, spousal support, child support, and equalization of net family property.

While the court found the applicant's non-compliance wilful, it declined to strike the pleadings immediately due to recent, albeit late, disclosure.

Instead, the court ordered the applicant to provide specific outstanding financial disclosure within strict timelines, including a business valuation, updated financial statements, and tax returns.

Failure to comply with certain orders would result in the abandonment of related claims, and the respondent was granted leave to bring a further urgent motion to strike if the applicant failed to meet the new deadlines.

The applicant mother brought a motion in the Ontario Court of Justice to lift the automatic stay of proceedings, which was triggered by the respondent father's commencement of a divorce application in the Superior Court of Justice.

The father's Superior Court application sought divorce, parenting time, equalization of net family property, and sale of family property.

The mother argued that the stay should be lifted due to the father's bad faith, prejudice to the children and herself, and waste of court resources.

The court found the father acted in bad faith by failing to file documents, breaching disclosure and child support orders, not seeking consent for property sale, and delaying the case.

The court determined that lifting the stay was in the children's best interests and served the administration of justice by avoiding duplication of efforts and allowing the OCJ to finalize issues it had extensively case-managed.

The applicant maternal grandmother brought an ex parte motion for temporary custody of her granddaughter following the father's death, failing to disclose the stepmother's significant role as caregiver.

The ex parte order was set aside upon the stepmother's presentation of evidence.

The stepmother sought full recovery costs of $9,937.78, alleging bad faith.

The court found the applicant's conduct highly unreasonable and misleading, though falling short of the strict legal threshold for bad faith.

The court ordered the applicant to pay $6,000 in costs to the stepmother.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his motion to change a spousal support order.

He argued that the respondent was no longer entitled to compensatory support, that more income should be imputed to her, that his own imputed income of $100,000 was too high, and that an increase in child support constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no material error or serious misapprehension of evidence by the motion judge.

The court upheld the findings that the respondent made reasonable efforts to become self-sufficient, the appellant failed to prove a material change in his income, and the increased child support did not reduce the respondent's need for support.

The Children's Aid Society appealed an order granting a mother access to her child, who had been placed in extended society care.

The Society argued the trial judge erred in his application of the best interests test under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, specifically regarding whether access would impair the child's opportunities for adoption.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the new, broader best-interests approach to access and made findings grounded in the evidence.

A motion by the Society to admit fresh evidence was also dismissed.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule an appeal that had been adjourned due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court directed that the appeal proceed by video conference before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

Detailed procedural directions were provided regarding the electronic filing of documents, factums, and compendiums using a password-protected drop box.

A child protection trial involving three children: JSP (8 years old), JS (4 years old), and RS (9 months old).

The Children's Aid Society sought orders placing JSP and JS in the final care and custody of their paternal grandparents and placing RS in extended society care.

The mother opposed these applications and sought placement of all children in her care or jointly with the maternal grandmother.

The court found that RS was a child in need of protection due to risk of physical harm arising from the mother's untreated mental health issues, substance abuse, volatile behaviour, lack of insight, and inability to work effectively with service providers.

The court found that intervention through court orders was necessary to protect all three children.

The court placed JSP and JS in the custody of the paternal grandparents and RS in extended society care, with carefully structured access orders balancing the children's need for connection with their mother against the risks posed by her conduct and mental health challenges.

This is a costs endorsement following a two-day trial on a motion to change parenting orders for three-year-old twin girls.

The father sought custody and relocation of the children from Niagara Falls to Toronto.

The court dismissed the custody and relocation requests but granted the father extensive access on a graduated basis.

The court found divided success overall, with the father being the more successful party on the dominant issue of parenting time.

The mother's unreasonable behaviour in restricting access and failing to facilitate the father-child relationship warranted costs consequences.

The court awarded costs to the father in the amount of $6,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, taking into account the mother's limited financial means.

The applicant father sought to change a custody order granting sole custody to the respondent mother, requesting custody of the five-year-old twin children or, alternatively, shared parenting.

The father also sought to require the mother to return with the children to the Greater Toronto Area from Niagara Falls.

The parties agreed that a material change in circumstances had occurred, as access had completely broken down.

The court found that custody should remain with the mother, that the children should remain in Niagara Falls, and that the father should have graduated access beginning with four weekly four-hour visits, escalating to alternate weekends, with strict requirements that the mother use a third party for all access exchanges.

The respondent brought a motion to change a 2014 final order, seeking to terminate spousal support and vary child support, alleging a material change in circumstances due to reduced income and health issues.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought orders for sole decision-making authority for their child, dispensation of travel consents, and reimbursement for reunification therapy costs.

The court found that the respondent failed to establish a material change in circumstances regarding his income or health, maintaining his imputed income at $100,000 per year.

Child support was increased from $577 to $910 per month due to the child residing exclusively with the applicant.

The motion to vary spousal support was dismissed, and the applicant's imputed income remained at $35,000.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making authority for the child, dispensed with the respondent's consent for travel and government documents, and ordered the respondent to pay $1,190 for his share of reunification therapy.

The existing joint custody order was not varied.

The applicant father sought to assume jurisdiction in Ontario to change custody of the parties' nine-year-old daughter from the respondent mother to himself, and to find the mother in contempt for failing to comply with access orders.

The child had been living with the mother in Florida for three years pursuant to a consent order, but the mother had substantially failed to provide the ordered access to the father in Ontario.

The father obtained an emergency pick-up order in Florida and brought the child to Ontario.

The court declined to assume jurisdiction, finding that Florida was the child's habitual residence and that it would be more appropriate for the Florida court to exercise jurisdiction to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

However, the court made an interim order requiring the child's return to Florida conditional on the mother's undertakings regarding the child's safety and access to the father.

The offender pleaded guilty to 11 Criminal Code offences involving the sexual abuse of children and the creation and possession of child pornography.

The offences included four counts of making child pornography, four counts of making child pornography available, two counts of invitation to sexual touching, and one count of sexual interference.

The offender abused five identifiable children, including his own biological daughter and his girlfriend's daughters, all under the age of 10.

He also possessed 1,868 images and 95 videos of child pornography across multiple devices, with many depicting severe abuse of very young children.

The court imposed a global sentence of 9 years and 3 months, with ancillary orders including DNA collection, lifetime SOIRA registration, lifetime weapons prohibition, and a 20-year Section 161 order.

The respondent father sought costs following a motion for contempt against the applicant mother.

Although the court did not find the mother in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt, it found on a balance of probabilities that she deliberately and willfully breached a parenting order, necessitating a remedy.

The court awarded the respondent costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing the amount at $15,429 inclusive of disbursements and HST, noting the mother had sufficient capital to pay.