Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The decision addresses a high-conflict parenting dispute involving allegations of sexual abuse and parental alienation.

The court finds that the mother, Melanie Lynn Grillo, alienated the child, Zaria, from her father, Edwin Adam Lawrence Newton, and orders an immediate change of primary residence to the father, with the mother’s parenting time to be expanded at the father’s discretion.

The court finds the abuse allegations unsubstantiated and details the evidence of alienation, referencing leading case law on parental alienation and the best interests of the child.

The court considered whether a domestic agreement between Delby Saulnier and Kelly Postma should be set aside for lack of disclosure and other reasons, and determined the parties' respective entitlements regarding a jointly occupied farmhouse property after their separation.

The court upheld the agreement, found that Saulnier was entitled to a monetary payment for his share of the increased equity in the farmhouse, and addressed claims for damages for conversion, spoliation, and intrusion upon seclusion.

This costs endorsement addresses a motion regarding parenting time and the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).

The court found that success on the motion was divided: parenting time was reinstated, but the OCL was not appointed.

The court also addressed outstanding child support and ordered immediate payment to the Applicant.

Given the divided success and the circumstances, no costs were awarded.

This decision addresses the terms of access between a child, C, his mother, and his siblings in a child protection context.

The court orders liberal, minimally supervised access between C and his mother, and regular sibling access, emphasizing the best interests of the child and the importance of sibling relationships.

The court also clarifies its jurisdiction to designate a child as an access holder under a s. 102 custody order, ensuring the child’s ability to bring an openness application in future adoption proceedings.

This costs endorsement addresses two motions brought by the Respondent, both dismissed with costs awarded to the Applicant.

The first motion challenged the court's jurisdiction over property claims, and the second sought leave to appeal an arbitrator’s email communication.

The court reviews the guiding legal principles for costs in family law, including reasonableness, proportionality, and bad faith.

The Applicant was awarded $48,500 for the jurisdiction motion and $16,500 for the leave motion, both payable within 30 days.

In a 54-day family trial following years of child protection involvement, the court found a material change in the child’s circumstances and held that the child’s best interests required sole decision-making and primary residence with the father, with the mother restricted to professionally supervised parenting time.

The court found repeated unsubstantiated abuse and neglect allegations, coaching of the child, and longstanding mental health concerns had caused the child emotional harm and justified both supervised access and ordered psychiatric and psychological assessments.

On the financial issues, the court awarded the father retroactive and ongoing child support, an equalization payment, and reimbursement for funds taken from his share of the former matrimonial home sale proceeds, rejecting the contention that those funds were a gift.

The court recognized the mother’s entitlement to spousal support in principle, largely on a needs basis, but held that the father had already satisfied any spousal support obligation through credits and prior payments, leaving no retroactive or ongoing spousal support payable.

Privacy protections were ordered through initials and sealing of sensitive exhibits.

This cost decision follows a focused trial on retroactive child support.

The court found the mother, Ms. Sorrenti, to be the most successful party and ordered the father, Mr. Thompson, to pay $18,000 in costs.

The decision details Mr. Thompson’s unreasonable litigation conduct, including failure to provide financial disclosure and forcing unnecessary motions, justifying a substantial indemnity award.

The court also considered Ms. Sorrenti’s conduct but found Mr. Thompson’s actions more blameworthy.

The cost award is deemed child support for enforcement purposes.

The applicant father brought an application to determine his income for the purpose of calculating retroactive and prospective child support.

The respondent mother disputed the father's reported income, arguing that he had failed to report all income sources and had deducted unreasonable personal expenses through his corporations.

The court reviewed the expert valuation report and found that while the father reported income from all sources, he had improperly deducted personal expenses for his residence and vehicle.

Consequently, the court adjusted the personal use allocations for rent to 75% and vehicle expenses to 50%, ordering a recalculation of the father's income and child support arrears.

This decision addresses two issues: (1) the use of artificial intelligence in legal submissions, specifically the submission of facta containing non-existent or misrepresented case law, and (2) the merits of a motion concerning the administration of the estate of Xiang Guo Li, including the setting aside of a divorce order, estate trustee issues, and the rights of competing spouses.

The court set aside the divorce order for fraud and duress, ordered disclosure and administration steps for the estate, and required the applicant's counsel to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt for submitting false authorities.

The applicant, Ann Marie Alexander Bedell, sought interim sole decision-making responsibility for the children and child support based on imputed income to the respondent, Camiel Wayne Bedell.

The court declined to grant sole decision-making responsibility, finding no evidence that joint decision-making was not in the children's best interests.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on his prior earning history, finding he was intentionally under-employed and that his decision to return to school was not a reasonable educational need in the circumstances.

Interim child support was ordered based on an imputed income of $137,610 per annum.

The court considered a motion for summary judgment by the Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville regarding the status of a child, S.T., under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Society sought an order finding that S.T. was not in need of protection in relation to his father, M.T., and requested that M.T. be granted custody and sole decision-making responsibility, with the mother, B.W., to have limited parenting time.

The court reviewed the history of the Society’s involvement, the child’s circumstances, and the legal principles governing summary judgment and status review applications.

The court found that S.T. was not in need of protection regarding M.T., but continued to be in need of protection regarding B.W., and granted the relief sought by the Society.

The applicant sought an order for the sale of the matrimonial home, an interim disbursement or advance on equalization, preservation and non-depletion orders, and costs.

The court found that only the interim disbursement/advance issue was properly before the court, but issued an order for the sale of the matrimonial home by agreement.

The applicant did not meet the burden for an interim disbursement or advance.

The respondent was awarded partial costs.

This decision addresses a high-conflict family law matter involving parenting time, decision-making authority, and financial issues following the separation of S.M. (applicant) and N.E. (respondent).

The court reviews the respondent's repeated non-compliance with court orders, her failure to participate in proceedings, and the resulting orders for an undefended trial on financial issues.

The court ultimately denies the respondent's motion to set aside the undefended trial, grants the applicant sole decision-making authority for the child, and sets out detailed orders regarding child support, the matrimonial home, and costs.

This costs endorsement addresses the entitlement and quantum of costs following a motion regarding the choice of school for the parties’ teenage children.

The respondent father, having succeeded on the motion, sought full recovery costs.

The court found the applicant mother’s conduct unreasonable but not in bad faith, and awarded the father elevated but not full recovery costs, fixing the amount at $4,000 inclusive of HST.

The court considered an application by Misty Wilson to vary the spousal support terms of a 2018 separation agreement, seeking a retroactive and prospective increase and security for support.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the cessation of child support obligations and an increase in Dan Wilson’s income, but declined to order retroactive support before January 1, 2023, or require life insurance security.

Spousal support was increased to $1,000 per month effective January 1, 2023.

This decision addresses an interim parenting and school placement dispute following a parent's unilateral relocation with children in breach of a separation agreement.

The court finds the mother acted unilaterally and without candor, and orders the children to remain at their original school, with a detailed interim parenting schedule and joint decision-making (with final authority to the father if consensus cannot be reached).

The decision emphasizes the primacy of the children's best interests, the importance of stability, and the need for full disclosure and procedural fairness in family law proceedings.

The respondent, Yitzhak Lewin, brought a motion to set aside a final order made in his absence in a family law proceeding.

The court considered whether there was proper service of the application, whether the motion was brought promptly, whether there was a plausible excuse for the default, whether there was an arguable defence, and the comparative prejudice to the parties.

The court found that service was proper, the motion was brought promptly, and the respondent had a plausible excuse and an arguable defence.

The prejudice to the respondent if the default judgment was maintained outweighed the prejudice to the applicant if it was set aside.

The order of Bordin J. was set aside, and the respondent was permitted to file responding materials.

The court issued supplementary reasons in a family law application, correcting and clarifying its earlier order.

The decision addresses mistakes and omissions in the original reasons, including the division of property, entitlement to compensation for beneficial interests, limitation periods for trust claims, and the effect of post-separation mortgage refinancing.

The court orders compensation for the applicant’s share of the Bashundhara plot, finds the claim for the Australian properties limitations-barred, and clarifies the disbursement of proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

This decision concerns a motion regarding the relocation of a 10-month-old child, Georgia, by her mother from Hamilton to Meaford, Ontario, without the father's consent.

The court reviews the parties' affidavits and the circumstances of the move, including issues of urgency, domestic violence allegations, parenting capacity, and the impact of distance on the child's relationship with both parents.

The court orders the mother to pursue arrangements to relocate back to Hamilton and to provide documentation of her housing applications, while maintaining the current parenting schedule with conditions.

The court considered whether shares in a co-operative housing corporation, registered to Anne and Jacob Glickman, were held jointly or as tenants in common.

The Estate of Yaacov Glickman sought a declaration that it was the sole beneficial and legal owner of the shares by right of survivorship.

The court found that the shares were held jointly, and upon Anne’s death, her interest passed to Jacob by survivorship.

The court rejected arguments to expand the definition of “land” in the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act to include co-op shares, holding that the Family Law Act presumption of joint tenancy applied.