Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The court considered motions regarding the limitation periods applicable to a counter-application and Family Law Act claims in the estate of Murray Gibbons.

Emilia Gibbons sought to dismiss Edward Gibbons' counter-application as statute-barred, while the respondents sought to dismiss Emilia's Family Law Act claims for the same reason.

The court found the counter-application was out of time and dismissed it, but granted an extension for Emilia's Family Law Act claims, allowing them to proceed.

The court considered an application by Wayne Biggar for spousal support and unequal division of net family property following the breakdown of his marriage to Donna Stratford (nee Biggar).

After reviewing the parties’ financial circumstances, contributions, and the evidence at trial, the court granted Mr. Biggar’s claim for spousal support on a non-compensatory basis, ordering a lump sum payment of $85,000 to be paid from Ms. Stratford’s share of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed Mr. Biggar’s claim for unequal division, finding that the remaining proceeds of sale should be divided equally, subject to adjustments for the spousal support award and a prior judgment against Mr. Biggar.

The court also found that, although an equalization payment was technically owed by Mr. Biggar, equitable considerations justified reducing it to zero.

The court determined the equalization of net family property following a four-year marriage between Supreet Walia and Ashutosh Walia.

The applicant, Supreet Walia, sought an unequal division, alleging the respondent understated his net family property and hid assets.

The court dismissed claims against the respondent’s parents and their company, focusing solely on the spouses.

After detailed analysis of assets, liabilities, and credibility, the court found Supreet Walia entitled to an equalization payment of $19,098.74, plus pre-judgment interest, rejecting claims for unequal division based on unconscionability or family violence.

The defendant brought a motion for production of documents from the minor plaintiff’s mother, a non-party, relating to the income of the deceased and allegations of sexual abuse.

The court found the documents relevant and necessary for the assessment of damages in a Family Law Act claim and ordered their production, rejecting arguments of prematurity and privacy.

The court also awarded costs to the defendant, with a reduction for issues abandoned or narrowed during the motion.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary parenting, child and spousal support, equalization, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, life insurance, and costs.

The court found the respondent's behaviour troubling, imputed income for child support, granted arrears and retroactive support, and ordered exclusive possession of the home and life insurance.

The applicant was also granted the right to seek spousal support in the future, and the respondent was ordered to pay an equalization amount.

Payment of certain amounts was deferred until the sale of the home.

The court considered a motion by Sandra Couto seeking sanctions against Jason Carvalho for failing to comply with a financial disclosure order in ongoing family law litigation.

The court found that Jason had not complied with the order, particularly in failing to provide third-party authorizations and certain financial information.

Jason was given a final 15-day period to comply, after which Sandra may move to strike his pleadings.

The court declined to immediately strike pleadings or bar Jason from further relief, recognizing his self-represented status and confusion, but emphasized the importance of compliance with disclosure orders.

The Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex sought orders for extended society care for two children, KP and KLP, on the basis of ongoing risk of physical harm due to the mother’s unaddressed mental health and substance abuse issues, lack of cooperation, and inconsistent parenting.

The court found the children in need of protection under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and ordered extended society care with supervised access to the mother and sibling access.

The decision details the evidence, credibility findings, and the legal framework for child protection, disposition, and access orders.

This decision addresses whether a religious marriage ceremony (Nikah) performed in Ontario without a marriage licence or registration can be deemed a valid marriage under s. 31 of the Marriage Act, and whether the parties are "spouses" for the purposes of the Family Law Act.

The court finds that the applicant intended to be legally married and relied on the respondent to make the necessary arrangements, satisfying the requirements of s. 31.

The marriage is deemed valid, and both parties are declared spouses entitled to claim equalization of net family property.

Cette décision porte sur la compétence des tribunaux de l’Ontario ou du Québec pour traiter des questions parentales concernant l’enfant Ivy-Jesse, née en 2016.

Après un historique complexe de déplacements entre provinces et de procédures judiciaires, la Cour supérieure de justice de l’Ontario conclut qu’elle n’a pas compétence pour instruire la requête de la mère, la résidence habituelle de l’enfant étant demeurée au Québec en raison d’un déplacement illicite.

La cour rappelle les principes de la Loi portant réforme du droit de l’enfance et de la jurisprudence pertinente, et confirme que les ordonnances temporaires de l’Ontario demeurent en vigueur jusqu’à ce qu’elles soient remplacées par une ordonnance du tribunal compétent au Québec.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a 2004 child support order, which had imputed an annual income of $100,000 to him.

The parties agreed that child support terminated on June 30, 2014, when their daughter finished high school.

The court found that the original order significantly overstated the respondent's income from his cash-based hot dog cart business.

Based on tax returns and other evidence, the court recalculated his annual child support obligations from 2004 to 2014, reducing his total liability to $23,815.

After applying credits for payments made, the court reduced the outstanding child support arrears to $9,381.70.

The court dismissed the applicant’s motion to set aside a previous order dismissing her claim for life insurance proceeds allegedly paid in violation of a separation agreement.

The decision addresses the availability of summary judgment in family law, the requirements for setting aside an order, and the jurisdictional boundaries between the Unified Family Court and the general Superior Court.

The court found no arguable defence on the merits and concluded that the Unified Family Court was not the proper forum for the applicant’s claim against the respondent.

This decision addresses whether a person who was formerly married and divorced (including by foreign divorce) can apply for spousal support under Ontario’s Family Law Act.

The court finds that a divorce, whether foreign or domestic, does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to order spousal support under the Family Law Act.

The decision reviews and departs from prior appellate authority, relying on statutory interpretation, legislative purpose, and recent appellate commentary suggesting the law is “ripe for reconsideration.” The court also addresses the alternative basis for support where the parties resumed cohabitation after the foreign divorce.

This decision addresses a high-conflict family law dispute involving allegations of intimate partner violence (IPV), child and spousal support, parenting time, and property division.

The court found a pattern of psychological, sexual, physical, and financial abuse by the father, and adopted a restorative approach to parenting orders, emphasizing the children's best interests, stability, and the need for therapeutic interventions.

The mother was granted sole decision-making authority (except for extracurriculars), and the father was ordered to pay retroactive and ongoing support.

The decision provides a detailed analysis of the impact of IPV on family dynamics and the application of restorative justice principles in family law.

The applicant sought to vary a 20-year-old interim child support order to terminate his support obligations for three children and to seek reimbursement for support paid after the children allegedly became disentitled.

The respondent opposed and sought an increase in child support retroactive to November 1, 2019.

The court found that the applicant had underpaid support for years due to not disclosing increased income, and that the respondent was entitled to retroactive support for the two remaining eligible children, calculated based on the applicant’s true available income, including retained corporate earnings.

The court fixed arrears and set out the process for determining costs and payment of arrears.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to amend a temporary parenting order, seeking supervised parenting time for the father due to his alleged incitement of the children to make abuse allegations against her and her new husband.

The court found the matter urgent, determined that the father's conduct constituted emotional harm to the children, and ordered supervised in-person and virtual parenting time for the father, with the mother retaining decision-making responsibility.

The court also ordered disclosure of police and CAS records and set out a process for further proceedings and costs.

The applicant father sought a "chasing order" for declaratory relief that the child, F.K., is habitually resident in Brampton, Ontario, and for the child's return from Poland under the Children’s Law Reform Act and the Hague Convention.

The court found that F.K. was wrongfully retained in Poland by the mother and ordered the child's immediate return to Ontario.

The decision reviews the legal principles of habitual residence, wrongful retention, and the best interests of the child, and addresses the credibility of the parties' evidence.

The court considered whether a mother could insist on strict compliance with a parenting order after the parties had followed a different schedule for over three years.

The father sought to restore the status quo of Thursday overnight visits, which the mother unilaterally attempted to revert to alternate Wednesdays.

The court found that the status quo should be maintained pending a full hearing, emphasizing the best interests of the child and discouraging unilateral changes.

The father's motion was granted, maintaining Thursday overnight parenting time.

This decision concerns the penalty phase of a contempt motion in a high-conflict family law matter.

The Respondent mother sought a declaration that the Applicant father was in breach of several paragraphs of a final order regarding parenting time, communication, and information sharing.

The court found the Applicant in contempt for multiple breaches, including failing to comply with parenting time provisions, disseminating information contrary to the order, and contacting the child surreptitiously.

The court concluded that the Applicant’s right to progress to unsupervised parenting time is suspended pending a Motion to Change, given his ongoing defiance and lack of remorse.

The matter is to proceed to a focused Motion to Change, with case management to ensure a manageable evidentiary record.

This costs endorsement follows a trial between family members over a life interest in a home.

The court found that Herminia Bada retained a life interest in the property, despite having signed an Acknowledgment and Direction removing it from title, as she did not understand the implications.

The court considered the conduct of the parties, including Herminia’s dishonesty about signing the document, and fixed costs at $45,000 in fees plus HST and $7,000 in disbursements, rather than the higher amount sought.

The court emphasized the importance of truthfulness and the principles governing costs awards.

The applicant mother sought both ongoing and retroactive child support from the respondent father, as well as a determination of the father's contribution to special and extraordinary expenses under section 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court fixed the date of separation as August 10, 2018, and, after considering the relevant factors, ordered retroactive child support from January 1, 2020, in the amount of $37,500, to be paid in installments.

The court also ordered the father to pay 72% of certain section 7 expenses, both retroactively and prospectively, and set out a detailed parenting plan and holiday schedule.

A divorce was granted.