Sarah E. Mott-Trille

The Applicant and Respondent, divorced spouses, disputed their date of separation, ownership of the matrimonial home (1 Glendale Avenue, Brampton), retroactive child support, retroactive section 7 expenses, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the date of separation to be August 1, 1993, based on a separation agreement, tax filings, and evidence of separate lives within the same home.

The Respondent's claim for a resulting trust over the Applicant's 50% registered interest in the Glendale property was granted, as the Applicant made no financial contribution and was only on title for financing purposes, rebutting the presumption of joint ownership.

The Applicant's claim for equalization was dismissed as statute-barred.

The Respondent was awarded $39,821 in retroactive child support, while the claim for retroactive section 7 expenses for orthodontics was dismissed as the parties were found to share the expense 50-50 and the Respondent had already paid his share.

This is a costs decision arising from motions brought by the parties regarding custody and access to their four-year-old daughter during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The mother sought enforcement of an existing custody order and requested temporary changes to limit the father to virtual access.

The father sought temporary custody of the child.

The court granted the mother's motion to enforce the existing order and dismissed the father's motion to change custody.

The court made temporary modifications to the access order, granting the father substantial parenting time including weekend access and midweek overnight visits, along with daily virtual access for both parents.

The mother was determined to be the more successful party and was awarded costs.

This fifth case management endorsement addresses several procedural matters, including the rescheduling of examinations for discovery after the plaintiffs failed to attend, the completion of mandatory mediation, the transition of a minor plaintiff to an adult plaintiff requiring an order to continue, and the status of demands for particulars and freedom of information requests.

It also sets out directions for potential summary judgment motions and schedules the next case management conference.

The applicant sought an order under the Hague Convention for the return of three children to Australia, alleging they were wrongfully retained in Ontario by the respondent.

The court examined habitual residence, consent, the one-year limitation under Article 12, and the grave risk of harm defence under Article 13(b).

It found that the family had a settled intention to reside in Australia and that the children's habitual residence remained Australia despite a temporary trip to Canada.

The respondent’s retention of the children after commencing custody proceedings in Ontario constituted wrongful detention, and no grave risk of harm was established.

The court ordered the children returned to Australia.

Following earlier reasons granting leave to file a late appeal subject to conditions, the appellant failed to perfect the appeals.

The respondent sought dismissal of the appeals and recovery of costs.

The court declined to consider an affidavit filed contrary to its earlier directions and found the appellant had not complied with the conditions imposed.

Considering the factors governing costs and the appellant’s conduct, the court ordered full indemnity costs in favour of the respondent.

The appeals were dismissed and the stay of the underlying orders lifted.

The responding spouse brought a motion to vary an interim spousal support order that required monthly support based on an imputed income of $60,000.

The moving party argued that a suspended driver’s licence and resulting unemployment justified reducing support.

The court held that a licence suspension arising from non-payment of support does not constitute a material change in circumstances.

Given prior findings of non-disclosure and credibility concerns, the court declined to revisit the earlier imputed income determination.

The motion to vary the spousal support order was dismissed.

The father sought leave to extend the time to file a notice of appeal from an Ontario Court of Justice order granting the children’s grandmother temporary access.

The motion arose after the children’s mother removed the children from Ontario to the Bahamas shortly after the access order and the father claimed he was unable to comply due to the parties’ separation and the mother’s unilateral actions.

The court reviewed the governing factors for extending time to appeal, including bona fide intention to appeal, explanation for delay, prejudice, merits, and the justice of the case.

The court found the father’s explanation for the delay not credible and concluded the evidence suggested he facilitated the children’s removal from the jurisdiction and obstructed access.

Nevertheless, in light of the children’s interests and the broader administration of justice, leave to appeal was granted subject to strict conditions requiring the children’s presence in Ontario during the appeal process and staying enforcement of the underlying orders pending appeal.