Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The parties separated after an altercation that led to criminal charges against the respondent.

The central issue at trial was determining which party took approximately $405,000 in cash and precious metals from safes in the matrimonial apartment.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that the applicant took the assets.

The court calculated the equalization payment and post-separation adjustments, ordering the applicant to pay the respondent $233,363.02.

The court also imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes, ordered retroactive and ongoing child support, and dismissed the respondent's claim for spousal support.

The applicant father and respondent mother sought a determination on the primary residence and parenting time for their four-year-old child, who was about to commence school.

The parties lived four hours apart, making their previous week-about arrangement unworkable.

The court considered the factors under s. 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, including the child's strong bonds with half-siblings in both households.

The court found that the father's plan better maintained the child's relationships with all siblings and provided more consistent daily care.

Primary residence was awarded to the father, with the mother receiving alternating weekends, holidays, and week-about parenting time during the summer.

The plaintiffs, parents of the defendant Devon, brought a motion for summary judgment claiming a 50% interest in a property they co-resided in with the defendants.

The plaintiffs provided the $100,000 down payment, but title was taken solely in the defendants' names to secure mortgage financing, necessitating a gift letter.

The court found the defendants failed to rebut the presumption of resulting trust, as the evidence showed the plaintiffs intended to acquire an interest in the property, not gift the funds.

The court granted summary judgment, declared the plaintiffs hold a 50% interest, ordered the property sold, and struck the defendants' counterclaim for damages.

The respondent father brought a motion to enforce a settlement allegedly reached at a settlement conference in a child protection proceeding.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that no binding settlement had crystallized because essential terms, such as whether the order would be a supervision order or a final custody order, had not been agreed upon.

Furthermore, under the Family Law Rules, no agreement reached at a settlement conference is effective until signed by the parties and approved by the court.

The mother brought a motion to adjourn the family law trial for a year, citing a disability and arguing the court had a duty to accommodate her under human rights legislation.

The father opposed the lengthy adjournment and brought a motion to unseal an incomplete Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) report.

The court found the mother's medical evidence insufficient to justify a year-long adjournment and noted her failure to specify required accommodations.

However, the court adjourned the trial to the fall sittings due to overall lack of trial readiness.

The father's unsealing motion was adjourned, the mother's request for child counsel was dismissed, and the father's request for police enforcement of parenting time was dismissed without prejudice.

The applicant and respondent, unmarried cohabitants for 12 years, separated and sought division of accumulated real estate.

The applicant claimed a 50% interest in properties registered to the respondent based on unjust enrichment and joint family venture.

The court found the applicant made a modest financial contribution to the family home and contributed to the maintenance of investment properties and the family home, allowing the respondent to earn substantial income.

The court concluded the criteria for unjust enrichment and joint family venture were met and awarded the applicant a 35% interest in the family home and other properties, less the equity in a condominium owned by the applicant.

This family law motion concerned the final disbursement of funds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent husband sought reimbursement of $22,293.39 from the applicant wife's share for 50% of carrying costs he paid post-separation.

The court found that the settlement agreement and consent order, which included a spousal support release for the respondent, implicitly resolved the carrying cost claim.

The respondent's claim for reimbursement was dismissed, and the funds were ordered to be disbursed according to the agreed-upon deductions and entitlements, with the applicant receiving the larger share.

The applicant brought a family law proceeding which the respondent argued was statute-barred under s. 7(3)(b) of the Family Law Act.

The respondent claimed the parties separated in 2001, while the applicant claimed they separated in 2009.

The court examined the parties' living arrangements, travel, and communications to determine when they separated with no reasonable prospect of resuming cohabitation.

The court found the parties continued to cohabit until June 30, 2007, meaning the applicant's 2010 proceeding was commenced well within the six-year limitation period.

In a parenting dispute between unmarried parents of a young child, the court considered whether the father’s access should remain supervised at a supervised access centre and addressed child support.

Allegations concerning the father’s sexual behaviour and a psychological assessment suggesting prudence regarding unsupervised caregiving tasks were examined.

The court found no evidence that the father posed a risk to the child and concluded that continued highly restricted access was not in the child’s best interests.

Applying the Children’s Law Reform Act and the principle of maximum contact, the court ordered a graduated expansion of supervised access outside the supervised access centre with conditions preventing the father from bathing or changing the child.

The court also ordered prospective child support based on the father’s modest income and declined retroactive support.

This was a costs decision following a family trial in which spousal support remained the only unresolved merits issue.

The applicant moved to amend the trial disposition on costs after the court had initially ordered each side to bear its own costs without being advised of a written offer to settle.

Applying the Family Law Rules governing costs and offers to settle, the court held that it retained discretion to change the unentered judgment and that the respondent's failure to accept the applicant's offer was a significant factor.

After considering proportionality, reasonableness, complexity, conduct, and the actual fees claimed, the court awarded the applicant $60,000 inclusive for the period after the offer, with each party bearing their own prior costs.

Former spouses brought competing motions in family proceedings.

The applicant sought interim spousal support, while the respondent moved for summary judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim to equalization and division at source of the respondent’s pension following the applicant’s bankruptcy discharge.

The court held that the marital roles established entitlement to interim spousal support and ordered temporary support based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

However, applying bankruptcy and family property jurisprudence, the court concluded that any equalization claim arising at separation constituted a provable claim in bankruptcy and was released upon the applicant’s discharge.

Summary judgment was therefore granted dismissing the pension-related equalization claim.

Following a lengthy family law trial involving equalization, child support, and spousal support, the court determined outstanding issues of costs and pre‑judgment interest.

The court exercised its discretion under ss. 128 and 130 of the Courts of Justice Act to set a prejudgment interest rate of 2.6% on the equalization payment, starting from the date of separation and adjusted for advance payments.

In determining costs under the Family Law Rules, the court found both parties had engaged in bad faith conduct, but the respondent’s conduct—particularly repeated failures to provide financial disclosure and breaches of court orders—had significantly prolonged the litigation.

The court therefore awarded full recovery costs for the early phase of the litigation while reducing recovery for issues affected by the applicant’s own bad faith conduct.

Costs were fixed globally with a portion designated as a support order enforceable under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996.

In a family law motion, the responding parent sought leave under Rule 11(3) of the Family Law Rules to amend pleadings at the last minute to add a claim for retroactive child support of approximately $19,700.

The amendment was sought after extensive litigation steps, including conferences and preparation for a scheduled motion addressing parenting and support issues.

The court held that the proposed amendment would disadvantage the other party and that the prejudice could not be adequately remedied through costs or an adjournment, particularly given the delay and the impact on pending parenting issues involving children.

The court emphasized the importance of diligent litigation conduct and timely case management in family proceedings.

Leave to amend the pleadings was refused.

Following the parties’ separation and a jointly requested divorce, the remaining dispute concerned child support and extraordinary expenses for two children.

The court considered whether income should be imputed to the payor father above amounts shown in his tax returns and whether a separation agreement clause fixing a minimum child support amount regardless of income was enforceable.

The court found the clause unreasonable and of no force because it required payment even if income fell to zero.

The court declined to impute higher income, relying instead on tax records to determine guideline income.

Child support was set according to the father’s actual income, retroactive adjustment was limited, and the father was ordered to contribute a proportionate share of extraordinary expenses.

During a trial management conference in an ongoing family law proceeding, the parties participated in a teleconference and provided updates regarding the schooling, services, and medical arrangements for their children following a proposed relocation to Simcoe County.

On consent, the court varied an earlier custody order to establish a revised parenting schedule under which the children would reside with the father during weekdays and spend designated weekends with the mother.

The order also addressed school enrollment, transportation arrangements, medical treatment compliance, and counselling requirements for the parties.

The children were deemed to continue primarily residing with the mother for purposes including child tax benefits, and existing child support obligations remained in place.

The custody and access arrangement was ordered to be reviewed at the next resumption of the trial management conference.

In matrimonial litigation, the respondent spouse brought a motion seeking extensive third‑party production relating to the estate and business affairs of the applicant’s deceased father, asserting that undisclosed gifts or anticipated inheritance were relevant to spousal support.

The court held that the request was based largely on speculation and suspicion and declined to order broad production from the estate, particularly where the inheritance had not yet been distributed and was subject to ongoing litigation.

The court ordered instead that the applicant provide an affidavit from the father’s accountant confirming any income received from the father or his businesses since separation.

On a cross‑motion, the applicant sought security for an anticipated equalization payment under s. 12 of the Family Law Act.

Finding a real risk of dissipation of assets due to inconsistent financial disclosures and substantial cash holdings, the court ordered the respondent to pay $500,000 into court pending trial.

The appellant mother appealed a child protection order granting summary judgment to the child protection society and making the child a Crown ward for adoption.

The appeal alleged that the lower court shifted the burden of proof, improperly relied on hearsay evidence contained in the society’s affidavits, and that fresh evidence regarding counselling participation should be considered.

The appellate court held that the motion judge correctly applied Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, including the allocation of the legal burden on the moving party and the evidentiary burden on the responding party.

After reviewing the transcripts, the court found no indication that the motion judge relied on inadmissible hearsay evidence.

The court therefore dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the Crown wardship order.

An uncontested family law trial concerning divorce, property claims, and spousal support.

The applicant sought a divorce, repayment of various sums allegedly paid during the marriage, equalization of net family property, and monthly spousal support.

The court held that an equalization payment could not be calculated due to the absence of evidence regarding the respondent’s net family property and rejected several reimbursement claims, including those relating to the matrimonial home and rental payments.

Limited repayment was ordered for proven advances and half the value of household contents retained by the respondent.

Spousal support was denied because the applicant’s reduced earning capacity resulted from his own criminal conduct.

Following a motion concerning the continuation of spousal support, the court determined the appropriate costs payable by the respondent to the partially successful moving party.

The moving party sought costs on a full indemnity basis exceeding $25,000, while the responding party argued the bill of costs was excessive and should be assessed on a partial indemnity basis.

The court held that there were no circumstances justifying substantial or full indemnity costs and that the time claimed for cross-examination was excessive.

Applying the principle that costs should be reasonable and reflect the reasonable expectations of the losing party, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis.

A lump sum costs award was ordered.

The responding parent brought a motion seeking an interim shared parenting arrangement for a young child following relocation to another city approximately 225 kilometres away.

The moving parent sought primary residence of the child with limited access for the other parent and alleged concerns about the other parent’s behaviour.

The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the status quo on interim motions involving custody and parenting, absent compelling evidence that a change is necessary to protect the child’s best interests.

Finding that the parties had historically shared parenting and that the relocation had not significantly altered the child’s experience with each parent, the court ordered joint custody and an alternating two‑week parenting schedule pending trial.

Requests for disclosure of child protection records were denied due to hearsay and insufficient evidence.