Samantha Chousky

The appellant mother appealed a trial judgment granting the respondent father overnight access to their six-year-old child.

The trial judge had adopted the parenting plan proposed by a court-appointed assessor, despite the mother's allegations of domestic violence and her reliance on critique evidence from another expert.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly considered the best interests of the child under the Children's Law Reform Act, appropriately weighed the expert evidence, and did not err by declining to make a formal 'custody' order or by ordering the parties to engage a mediator/arbitrator based on prior consent.

The appellants, estate trustees of the deceased, appealed a trial judgment granting dependants' relief to the respondent, the deceased's common-law spouse.

The deceased had left a $17 million estate but excluded the respondent from her wills following a corporate reorganization.

The trial judge awarded the respondent a property, $100,000 per year for life, and $50,000 every five years for a vehicle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the deceased failed to make adequate provision for the respondent, nor in her assessment of the amount and duration of support or the substantial indemnity costs award.

The applicant and the deceased lived together as common-law spouses for 12 years.

The deceased, a wealthy car dealership owner, executed new wills shortly before her death that left her entire estate to her daughter and various trusts, making no provision for the applicant.

The applicant brought a claim for dependant's relief under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court found that the deceased failed to make adequate provision for the applicant's proper support, noting her legal and moral obligations to him.

The court ordered the transfer of a $1.2 million home to the applicant, a tax-free capital payment of $100,000 per year for life, and $50,000 every five years for a vehicle.

The appellant husband, an extraordinarily wealthy man, structured his affairs using nominee corporations to hide his assets and avoid paying spousal and child support.

The trial judge pierced the corporate veil, finding the husband was the beneficial owner of the lands held by the corporations, and ordered the lands vested in the respondent wife to satisfy over $11 million in support and other monetary awards.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming the court's broad discretion to grant vesting orders in family law cases where a spouse demonstrates a clear intention to evade support obligations.

This document is a summary note regarding the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Contino v. Leonelli-Contino.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, establishing that a party seeking to deviate from the Federal Child Support Guidelines under the shared custody provisions of section 9 must establish on clear and compelling evidence that the deviation is in the child's best interests, and the court must consider all statutory factors without giving pre-eminence to any single factor.

The father applied to reduce his child support payments after the child began spending 50 percent of the time with him.

The Supreme Court of Canada established the proper approach to calculating child support under section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines for shared custody arrangements.

The Court held that there is no presumption in favour of the Guidelines amount or a simple set-off.

Instead, courts must take a contextual approach, considering the Table amounts, the increased costs of shared custody, and the conditions, means, needs, and other circumstances of each spouse and the child.

The father was ordered to pay $500 per month.

The father applied to reduce his child support obligation because his son was spending 50 per cent of the time with him.

The motion judge reduced the support from over $550 to $100 using a strict formulaic set-off approach.

The Divisional Court overturned this, ordering the Table amount of $688, holding there is a presumption in favour of the Table amount under s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The Court of Appeal allowed the father's appeal, holding that the presumption does not apply to s. 9.

The Court set out a structured discretionary approach to s. 9, starting with a simple set-off, applying a multiplier to reflect fixed costs, and adjusting for actual spending patterns.

The father was ordered to pay $399.61 monthly.

The father applied to reduce his child support obligations under s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines because the child was in his physical custody 50 per cent of the time.

The motion judge applied a strict formulaic set-off approach.

The Divisional Court allowed the mother's appeal, holding that the father had to adduce clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption that the Table amount was in the child's best interests.

The Court of Appeal allowed the father's appeal, holding that the Divisional Court erred in applying a presumption in favour of the Table amount to s. 9 cases.

The Court of Appeal also held that the motion judge erred in applying a strict formulaic approach, and instead set out a discretionary framework that considers the Table amounts, the increased costs of shared custody, and the conditions, means, needs, and other circumstances of each spouse and the child.

The parties separated after an 18-month marriage.

The trial judge ordered the appellant husband, who had a net worth of approximately $20 million, to pay $500,000 in lump sum spousal support to the respondent wife.

The husband appealed, arguing that the short duration of the marriage did not justify spousal support, or alternatively, that support should be periodic and limited to three years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the wife's earning capacity was impaired by the marriage and her parenting responsibilities.

The Court held that a lump sum was appropriate to promote her economic self-sufficiency and allow her to acquire stable housing for herself and the parties' child.