Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

A trial was held to determine the validity of a 2012 separation agreement, the applicant's claim to an interest in property based on unjust enrichment, and spousal support.

The applicant argued the agreement was void due to reconciliation and sought a constructive trust and spousal support.

The court found the separation agreement valid, concluding the parties never reconciled and the applicant's claims were motivated by his gambling addiction and attempts to shield assets.

The court dismissed all of the applicant's claims, finding no unjust enrichment and upholding the spousal support waiver.

This motion to change concerned the applicant mother's request to relocate the children of the marriage from Ontario to Hohenfels, Germany, due to her new partner's military posting.

The respondent father opposed the relocation, arguing it would negatively impact his parenting time, communication with the children, their relationships with paternal relatives, and that the eldest child did not wish to move and felt unsafe.

Applying sections 16(2), 16(3), 16.92(1), and 16.93(2) of the Divorce Act, the court found that the respondent had not met his burden of proving the relocation was not in the children's best interests.

The court determined the mother's relocation plan was reasonable, her historical caregiving role was strong, and the father's concerns regarding parenting time, communication, and safety were not substantiated or could be mitigated.

The court also weighed the children's views, noting the eldest child's views might be influenced by parental conflict.

The relocation was granted.

The applicant mother sought exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, spousal support, child support, and disclosure, while the respondent father brought a cross-motion for immediate sale of the home.

The court dismissed the father's motion for immediate sale and granted the mother exclusive possession, finding it unfair to dislocate her and the children prematurely given the availability of an early trial.

The court also declined to impute income to either party on an interim basis, citing the complexity of the income analysis and the summary nature of motions.

Temporary child and spousal support were ordered based on the father's stated income, with all support determinations being without prejudice to re-determination at trial.

The moving party sought to lift the stay of proceedings in her former husband's bankruptcy to pursue an equalization claim against his military pension.

Both parties had filed for bankruptcy and been discharged.

The moving party argued the bankrupt concealed his bankruptcy and that her claim was not provable or should survive discharge.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no concealment and applying established law that an equalization claim is a provable claim in bankruptcy that is extinguished upon discharge if not pursued beforehand.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and restricted access for the respondent father, while the father sought joint custody and shared time.

The court found that joint custody was not in the children's best interests due to the parents' inability to communicate and the history of conflict.

The mother was awarded sole custody.

The father, who had struggled with alcohol abuse following his sister's death, was granted a graduated access schedule subject to a strict sobriety condition.

The court also imputed an annual income of $13,000 to the unemployed father for child support purposes, finding him intentionally underemployed, but declined to order him to obtain life insurance due to lack of evidence regarding insurability and ability to pay.

The applicant and respondent each brought motions regarding interim parenting, child support, spousal support, interim costs, and drug testing.

The parties agreed to temporary joint custody, but disputed the parenting schedule.

The court ordered the continuation of the current fixed access schedule due to the respondent's recent completion of a drug rehabilitation program and criminal charges.

The court determined the respondent's income for child support purposes based on his base salary, excluding historical discretionary bonuses paid by his father's company.

The applicant's requests for interim spousal support and interim costs were dismissed.

Both parties were ordered to undergo bi-monthly drug screening for six months.

The applicant father brought a Motion to Change seeking to eliminate child support arrears accumulated between August 2016 and August 2018, arguing he was unable to work due to severe wrist pain and subsequent surgeries.

The respondent mother argued he should have found comparable work.

The court found that while the father was technically intentionally underemployed, his underemployment was reasonably required by his health needs under section 19(1)(a) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court fixed the arrears at $0.00 but declined to order the mother to reimburse funds already collected by the Family Responsibility Office.

The respondent successfully brought a motion for disclosure against the applicant.

Following the motion, the parties agreed on costs, but the applicant's counsel failed to finalize the settlement.

The respondent then filed costs submissions, seeking the agreed-upon costs plus additional costs for the applicant's failure to follow through.

The court reviewed the principles of costs in family law, emphasizing indemnification, settlement encouragement, and discouraging inappropriate behavior.

The court found the applicant's conduct regarding disclosure and the costs settlement unreasonable and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs, including an additional amount for the delay caused by the applicant's failure to finalize the settlement.

This motion concerned a request by the respondent to set aside outstanding child and spousal support arrears and conclude his support obligations, citing a material change in income since the original 2010 settlement agreement.

The applicant opposed, seeking to add to arrears for post-secondary expenses and enforce a life insurance policy requirement, while also requesting ongoing child support for a dependent adult child.

The court partially granted the respondent's request, fixing total arrears at a reduced amount, ordering ongoing child support for the dependent adult child at a reduced rate, and terminating spousal support, while dismissing the applicant's request to add further arrears for post-secondary expenses and for compensation related to the life insurance policy.

The applicant brought a motion for contempt and amendments to the parenting schedule, alleging the respondent breached a final order and communicated abusively.

The respondent alleged the applicant breached the order and sought a week-about schedule.

The court found the breaches stemmed from a misunderstanding of the schedule's implementation and declined to find contempt, though it noted the respondent's communications were at times derogatory.

The parties consented to a 'swear jar' order.

The court clarified the existing schedule rather than amending it.

As success was mixed and judicial intervention was necessary, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final custody order, seeking sole custody of the two children.

His grounds included the respondent mother's alleged inability to ensure timely school attendance, marijuana use, and frequent changes in residence and schools.

The mother opposed the custody change and sought increased retroactive and prospective child support.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding no material change in circumstances warranting a custody change.

However, the court granted the mother's request for increased child support, fixing retroactive arrears and setting a new prospective amount.

The court also ordered the children to attend a "Families in Transition" program and mandated parental adherence to school recommendations for the children's educational and therapeutic needs, particularly for Maelyn's ADHD diagnosis and Individual Education Plan.

The applicant sought a constructive trust interest in the respondent's home after a 15-year cohabitation.

The court applied the unjust enrichment framework from Kerr v. Baranow, finding no joint family venture and no tangible benefit conferred by the applicant that unjustly enriched the respondent.

The applicant's claim for a constructive trust was dismissed.

A counterclaim for pet damage by the respondent was also dismissed due to lack of mitigation evidence.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and specific child support orders, including arrears, for her two children from the respondent father.

The respondent father opposed the variation and sought sole custody for himself.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to chronic parental conflict, communication issues, and the children's evolving needs, particularly Dante's ADHD.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, finding her parenting plan more child-focused and her communication more effective.

The father's access was set to alternate weekends, with potential for mid-week access contingent on his participation in counselling.

Child support and special expenses were adjusted and arrears confirmed.

The applicant brought a motion seeking numerous forms of interim relief including increased child support, spousal support, a forensic income analysis of the respondent, and a preservation order over assets.

The court assessed the respondent’s income based on evidence of current salary and limited additional earnings, rejecting the applicant’s request to impute a substantially higher historical income.

The court found no evidentiary basis for a forensic accounting investigation or for a preservation order under s. 12 of the Family Law Act.

Ongoing child support was recalculated based on an income of $312,000 and spousal support was set at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Remaining issues including retroactive support were left for future determination.

The father brought a motion seeking unsupervised access and a return of the children to his care, while the mother sought continuation of supervised access and termination of telephone contact.

The court reviewed extensive materials and prior orders finding that the father had engaged in ongoing parental alienation and continued to raise adult issues with the children during access.

The court determined that the father had not demonstrated behavioural change or progress through counselling sufficient to justify unsupervised access.

Concerns also remained regarding the potential risk of international removal of the children.

The court ordered permanent supervised access and terminated regularly scheduled telephone access except in limited circumstances where weekly in‑person access does not occur.

The court determined costs following a family law motion and cross‑motion concerning child and spousal support and the potential sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant was found to be the successful party, having obtained support orders and resisted the respondent’s request for sale of the home, although the respondent achieved limited success on certain expense issues.

The court considered the parties’ offers to settle and found the applicant’s offer more closely aligned with the ultimate outcome.

While the applicant sought $18,500 in costs, the court found the hourly rate and some claimed work excessive in light of the issues and the reasonable expectations of the opposing party.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 on a partial recovery, all‑inclusive basis payable within 60 days.

The respondent to a prior support order brought a motion to vary a consent order governing child and spousal support, arrears, life insurance obligations, and costs.

The consent order had established a mechanism requiring an independent business valuator to annually determine the payor’s guideline income to avoid further litigation.

The court held that varying the order would require determining income in a manner inconsistent with the parties’ agreed mechanism and found no justification to depart from it.

Arguments relying on the principles in Boston v. Boston regarding equalized assets were rejected because income from a business does not deplete the capital asset.

The motion to vary was dismissed, while the opposing party’s cross‑motion succeeded, fixing arrears based on expert reports and ordering security for support due to the payor’s persistent non‑compliance.

The applicant sought to vary access and child support provisions arising from a Florida divorce judgment after child support had been terminated when the children did not attend summer access visits with the respondent.

The court found it had jurisdiction and that a material change in circumstances existed since a prior Ontario application was dismissed.

Evidence demonstrated that the children relied primarily on the applicant for financial support while pursuing post-secondary education, and that the respondent had the ability to pay despite ceasing support in 2007.

The court imputed income to the respondent and reinstated retroactive child support, varied the access terms to reflect the children’s adulthood and autonomy, and ordered proportionate contribution to educational expenses.

Following a five‑day hearing on a motion to change child support, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The responding party to the motion had unsuccessfully sought a retroactive reduction of child support after selling a dental practice and relocating abroad, and income had been imputed based on prior earnings.

The successful party sought substantial costs including partial and full indemnity rates.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considering success, offers to settle, the parties’ conduct, and the complexity of the issues, the court found the successful party was entitled to costs but reduced the amount claimed.

The court fixed costs at a fair and reasonable figure rather than the full amount incurred.

On an interim family law motion, the court addressed issues of spousal support, child support, corporate control, property taxes, and sale of the matrimonial home following separation.

The respondent sought imputation of income to the applicant and the sale of the matrimonial home, while the applicant sought support at the high range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and joint signing authority over a jointly owned company.

The court declined to order the sale of the matrimonial home, finding the request premature given unresolved equalization issues and the presence of other assets.

The court set interim child and spousal support based on the respondent’s income and declined to impute income to the applicant while she pursued education to become self-supporting.

The applicant was granted joint signing authority on the company accounts.