Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The applicant sought an order requiring the return of the parties' two children to Ottawa and prohibiting the respondent from removing them from Canada.

The respondent requested that the application be stayed in favour of proceedings she commenced in Brampton.

The court determined that while the older child's habitual residence was Ottawa, the younger child's habitual residence was Mississauga.

The court stayed the Ottawa application in favour of the Brampton proceeding, which was commenced first, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and potential inconsistent judgments.

The respondent's agreement to surrender her passport and NICOP card to her counsel adequately mitigated concerns about international removal.

The Applicant, Amanda Brandi Nicole Cameron, and the Respondent, William Craig Vincent, were in a common-law relationship and separated.

The primary outstanding issue was whether the Respondent was unjustly enriched to the detriment of the Applicant, specifically regarding his employment pension, under the doctrine of joint family venture.

The Applicant sought compensation via pension division or a monetary award.

The court found that the Respondent was unjustly enriched, concluding that a monetary award calculated on a "value surviving" basis was appropriate, but declined to order a specific division of the pension.

The court ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant $104,125 as compensation for the unjust enrichment, to be disbursed from the proceeds of the jointly owned home.

This trial decision addresses a family law dispute between cohabiting parents concerning relocation, decision-making authority, parenting time, child and spousal support, and occupation rent.

The Applicant mother unilaterally relocated with the children to Barrie, which the Respondent father opposed.

The court approved the relocation, acknowledging the established status quo, and implemented a modified joint decision-making framework where the mother has final authority in case of disagreement.

A detailed parenting schedule was set.

The Applicant's claim for occupation rent was dismissed.

The court imputed the Respondent's income for support purposes, accounting for undeclared cash revenue and personal expenses, and ordered further calculations for support arrears and section 7 expenses.

The Children's Aid Society applied under s. 161 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, to commit the child, A.R.P., to a secure treatment program for 180 days due to severe mental health issues, high-risk behaviours, and a history of self-harm and substance abuse.

The child, represented by the Office of the Children's Lawyer, opposed the application.

The court found that all six criteria under s. 164(1) of the CYFSA were met, including the child suffering from a mental disorder (FASD, intellectual disability, borderline personality disorder), having caused or attempted serious bodily harm within 45 days and 12 months of the application, and that the proposed secure treatment program was effective, appropriate, and the least restrictive option given the child's complex needs and lack of success with less restrictive alternatives.

This is a costs endorsement following a ten-day family law trial.

The trial addressed decision-making responsibility and parenting schedules for two children, and the winding up of a family trust.

The respondent achieved substantial success on the primary issues of decision-making and residency for one child, and a shared parenting schedule for the other.

The applicant's conduct was deemed unreasonable, particularly her refusal to communicate and make settlement offers.

The court awarded the respondent 75% of his actual costs, totaling $78,768.00, finding the amount reasonable and proportionate given the respondent's success and the applicant's unreasonable behaviour.

This endorsement addresses costs following a 10-day trial to change a 2015 final order concerning parenting and child support.

Both the applicant father and respondent mother sought costs, each claiming to be the successful party.

The court found mixed success, noting that while the mother had more individual issue wins, the father succeeded on more substantive issues, including maintaining three weekends of access per month and the imputation of his income at $30,000.00.

The court also found both parties had behaved unreasonably and in bad faith over the years, contributing to ongoing conflict.

Considering the father's more favourable Offer to Settle and the principle of proportionality, the court awarded the father reduced costs.

The applicant sought to vary a spousal support order, terminate ongoing support, and eliminate arrears following his retirement, arguing a material change in circumstances and "double recovery" issues regarding his employment pension.

The respondent opposed, citing economic hardship and the applicant's failure to apply for other pensions.

The court found a material change due to retirement, disallowed double recovery of the pension, imputed income to the respondent for intentional underemployment, and terminated spousal support effective September 1, 2019, fixing arrears at zero.

The respondent was ordered to reimburse the applicant for payments made after August 27, 2019.

The case involved a high-conflict family law trial following a 27-year marriage.

Key issues included spousal support entitlement and quantum, imputation of income to the applicant, division of vehicles, and the division of a federal pension at source.

The court found the applicant entitled to high-range spousal support, declined to impute additional income to her, and determined the "normal retirement date" for pension valuation purposes to be age 60 for Group 1 members of the Public Service Superannuation Act.

The court also addressed equalization payments, pre-judgment interest, and post-separation adjustments.

The mother brought a motion to change child support and custody.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's effective abandonment of the son and his departure from Canada shortly after a consent order.

The father's income was imputed at $50,000 per year, as his pursuit of a veterinary degree at age 54 was deemed an unreasonable educational need that did not justify his intentional under-employment.

Retroactive child support and section 7 expenses were ordered for both children, dating back to January 1, 2016.

The father's claim for previously stayed retroactive support was dismissed.

This costs endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion by the Respondent, Nancy Spencer, to set aside a default judgment obtained by the Applicant, Quirino Pescarino.

Ms. Spencer sought costs on a full recovery basis, relying on her success and two unaccepted offers to settle.

Mr. Pescarino claimed his costs of the motion and wasted costs of the proceeding.

The court found Ms. Spencer entitled to her costs on a full recovery basis due to Mr. Pescarino's unreasonable refusal of her settlement offers and his failure to establish her unreasonable conduct.

Mr. Pescarino's claim for wasted costs was dismissed without prejudice to claim them at trial.

The applicant mother sought an interim order for her eldest daughter, Nora, to attend École Trille des Bois and its after-school daycare program, following her relocation to a new school district.

The respondent father opposed, requesting Nora remain at École Élémentaire Francojeunesse, the school she previously attended.

The court, noting the high-conflict nature of the parties' litigation and the father's lack of a viable alternative plan for Nora's daily care, granted the mother's motion on a temporary, without prejudice basis.

The judge found the mother's plan to be in the child's best interests, as it provided a comprehensive solution for school and daycare without requiring a variation of the father's limited access schedule.

The father's credibility was also questioned regarding his claims of ignorance about the mother's address and the child's bus travel history.

This decision concerns a costs award following two motions in a family law matter.

The Applicant father sought various orders including joint custody, a parenting schedule, travel arrangements, and support, while the Respondent mother sought urgent travel to Japan with the child.

Many issues were resolved by consent, but the parenting schedule and costs remained contentious.

The court found the Applicant largely successful, noting the Respondent's unreasonable delay in consenting to previously offered terms and her conduct regarding conflicting travel dates.

The Respondent was ordered to pay $8,750.00 in costs to the Applicant, in addition to a prior $500 award, with the quantum influenced by her financial position.

This case involved a motion to change a joint custody order for two children (ages 13 and 11) due to severe parental conflict.

The court found a material change in circumstances, concluding that joint custody was no longer appropriate.

Interim sole custody of the elder child (Sierra) was awarded to the mother (Marcia), with specific access for the father (Nelson) and reunification therapy.

Interim sole custody of the younger child (Ethan) was awarded to the father (Nelson), with a week-about access schedule for the mother.

The decision also addressed retroactive and ongoing child support, Section 7 expenses, and dismissed a contempt motion against the mother, while criticizing both parents and the school board for their conduct.

This was an uncontested family law trial where the applicant sought divorce, spousal support, child support, equalization of net family property, freezing assets, costs, pre-judgment interest, and apportionment of a line of credit for university expenses.

The respondent failed to respond or appear.

The court granted a divorce decree but adjourned all other claims due to insufficient evidence regarding pension division and university expenses.

The court required further evidence, including a pension valuation by the administrator and detailed documentation for s. 7 expenses, and ordered the respondent to file a financial statement.

This decision addresses a Motion to Change seeking to vary child support provisions of a Separation Agreement dated November 12, 2008.

The applicant sought to reduce child support retroactively and prospectively based on the Child Support Guidelines and the number of eligible children, and to discharge arrears.

The respondent sought dismissal of the motion and recovery of arrears.

The court found significant ambiguity and inconsistency in the Separation Agreement's child support clauses, particularly regarding the fixed amount versus eligibility criteria.

The court imputed an income of $90,000 per annum to the applicant and adjusted child support retroactively from May 1, 2013, and prospectively, incorporating a "premium" component from the original agreement and an offset for a period when one child resided with the applicant.

The court also imputed an income of $30,000 to the respondent for offset purposes.

The applicant brought a motion to change child and spousal support.

The trial was repeatedly adjourned due to the self-represented respondent's difficulties in presenting her case, including alleged mental health issues and attempts to bring unserved motions.

The court, noting the prolonged nature of the trial and the respondent's inability to manage her case, indicated its intention to request the appointment of an amicus curiae if the respondent failed to secure counsel within four weeks.

The decision emphasizes the court's duty to ensure a just and timely resolution, citing the need for assistance to the court in complex cases involving self-represented litigants.

The respondent mother brought a motion to temporarily change custody and access, while the applicant father cross-moved for a referral to the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the applicant's bail conditions prohibiting communication with the respondent, which was fundamental to their joint custody arrangement.

The court declined to grant the respondent sole custody or supervised access, finding it premature and not in the children's best interests at this stage.

However, the court granted the respondent temporary sole authority for educational decisions for one child, made orders for summer arrangements, and directed a referral for therapeutic intervention for the family.

The court also consolidated the files and converted a previous "final" order into a "temporary" order, scheduling a case conference to address outstanding issues.

The applicant sought to terminate child support payments for his two sons, Jonathan and Brendan, pursuant to a 2007 separation agreement.

The motion was initially heard in August 2015 as an uncontested trial.

The court noted deficiencies in the applicant's financial disclosure and ordered him to serve complete documents on the unrepresented respondent.

The respondent failed to respond to the motion to change on both occasions.

The court found that terminating events had occurred for both children: Jonathan ceased post-secondary education by January 1, 2013, and Brendan stopped residing with the respondent by February 2015.

The court granted the termination of child support for Jonathan effective December 31, 2012, and for Brendan effective January 31, 2015, finding it fair and reasonable with no prejudice to the respondent or children.

The applicant was not seeking reimbursement for any overpayment.

The responding parent brought a motion to vary an existing parenting order to obtain equal parenting time with the parties’ children.

The other parent opposed the motion on the basis that no material change in circumstances had occurred and that the proposed arrangement was not in the children’s best interests.

The court held that the evidence largely repeated the material filed on the original motion and did not establish a material change affecting the children.

The moving parent had also failed to exercise a number of scheduled access visits under the existing order.

The court concluded that the motion amounted to a thinly disguised appeal of the prior order and dismissed the motion to change, leaving the issue of equal parenting time to be determined at the upcoming trial.

Following the withdrawal of a child protection application, the parents sought costs against the child protection agency for alleged financial losses, legal expenses, and other damages arising from the proceeding.

The court held that the applicants failed to provide any supporting documentation for their claimed expenses and that the court lacked jurisdiction on a costs motion to award damages for alleged harms.

The court further found that the agency had acted appropriately in investigating serious medical concerns raised by healthcare providers and school officials regarding the child’s health.

Once credible medical information alleviated those concerns, the agency withdrew the application.

In these circumstances, a costs award against the agency was not justified.