Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

Following a final settlement on a Motion to Change, the applicant sought full indemnity costs of $175,000, while the self-represented respondent argued for no costs or a nominal amount.

The court found the applicant was the successful party, having secured equal parenting time, which was the most important issue.

The court rejected the applicant's claim for full indemnity costs as there was no bad faith, but awarded partial indemnity costs of $100,000, noting the respondent's uncooperative behaviour and meritless adjournment application.

The respondent father brought a motion to expand his parenting time with the parties' 16-month-old child, including overnights and travel to his home in Detroit, Michigan.

The applicant mother opposed the expansion, arguing it would disrupt the child's strict breastfeeding and sleep routine.

The court found that while routine and breastfeeding are important, maximizing the father's parenting time to foster a strong bond and expose the child to his African American heritage was in the child's best interests.

The court ordered a gradual expansion of the father's parenting time, including overnights and holiday schedules.

The Children's Aid Society sought an extended society care order for three First Nations children who had been in foster care for over three years.

The mother, who had overcome substance abuse and secured housing, sought their return.

The court found the children in need of protection due to the mother's past neglect and failure to protect them.

Applying the augmented best interests test under the CYFSA and the Federal Act, the court concluded that removing the children from their long-term foster mother, to whom they were securely attached, would cause unacceptable emotional harm.

The children were placed in extended society care with access granted to the mother, siblings, and father.

The respondent brought a motion seeking costs, emotional hardship damages, and the dismissal of the applicant's requests to enforce family arbitration costs awards.

The court noted the high-conflict nature of the proceedings and the parties' failure to comply with practice directions.

The applicant conceded that the arbitration costs awards were satisfied by a set-off of section 7 expenses.

The court deferred the issue of costs for written submissions and directed a process to resolve ongoing disputes over the applicant's financial disclosure before allowing his Motion to Change to proceed.

Following motions for an interim parenting order and a Form 14B motion for fresh evidence, the successful respondent mother sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant father argued no costs should be awarded or they should be reserved to the trial judge.

The court rejected the father's arguments, finding his settlement offers unreasonable and his Form 14B motion materials misleading.

The court awarded the respondent mother costs fixed at $23,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The parties separated after a 20-year marriage.

The applicant husband claimed he had no assets, lived on loans from friends, and sought an unequal division of net family property in his favour.

The respondent wife claimed a resulting trust in the matrimonial home, equalization, and support, alleging the husband hid assets and income.

The court found the husband failed to make full and frank disclosure, hid foreign assets, and received substantial undisclosed income and gifts.

The court granted the wife a resulting trust in the matrimonial home, imputed an annual income of $349,544 to the husband, awarded the wife a lump sum spousal support payment of $434,784, and ordered the net proceeds of the matrimonial home be paid to her in satisfaction of her claims.

The applicant brought an unopposed motion to enforce a final order for lump sum spousal support and equalization against the respondent and his wholly-owned corporation.

The court dismissed the request to transfer funds from the respondent's locked-in retirement account (LIRA) because the LIRA was not in pay.

However, the court pierced the corporate veil, allowing the order to be enforced against the respondent's corporation, as the respondent had arranged for his employment income to be paid to the corporation to avoid his family law obligations.

The court also ordered that the lump sum support be enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

Following a 14-day trial where the applicant father successfully resisted the respondent mother's application to relocate their child to Michigan, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found that neither party beat their respective offers to settle and that neither party engaged in bad faith.

Applying a 60% partial indemnity rate to the father's reasonable costs and considering the mother's ability to pay, the court awarded the father $65,000 in costs, payable in monthly installments of $380.

The parties separated after a nine-year relationship and seven-year marriage.

The applicant sought sole custody, no access for the respondent, child and spousal support, and a restraining order due to the respondent's volatile behaviour when intoxicated.

The court granted the applicant sole custody and issued a restraining order, but allowed the respondent supervised access and reconciliation counselling.

Child support was ordered based on the respondent's current income, spousal support was terminated, and retroactive support was ordered for the period following separation.

The respondent sought leave to appeal a motion judge's order requiring him to pay $628 per month in child support.

The respondent, who is unemployable due to a childhood brain injury, receives monthly payments from a personal injury settlement fund administered by his mother.

The motion judge imputed an income of $36,000 to the respondent, grossed up to $42,000, effectively treating capital as income.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the order and noting that the treatment of capital receipts as income for child support purposes is an issue of general importance.

Following the breakdown of a 13‑year common‑law relationship, the applicant sought spousal support and a monetary remedy based on unjust enrichment.

The court found entitlement to spousal support on a non‑compensatory basis under ss. 30 and 33 of the Family Law Act due to economic dependency and hardship following separation.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court awarded retroactive and ongoing support, including a lump‑sum payment reflecting discounted retroactive amounts and ongoing monthly support for a limited duration.

The court also examined the claim for unjust enrichment using the joint family venture framework from Kerr v. Baranow but concluded the distribution of wealth between the parties was not inappropriately disproportionate.

As a result, no property remedy was granted.

Following a long marriage, the court determined divorce and multiple financial consequences of separation, including child support, section 7 expenses, spousal support, equalization, occupation rent, and post-separation adjustments relating to the matrimonial home.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that the children had repudiated the relationship so as to disentitle them to support, finding their estrangement was materially influenced by the applicant.

Child support continued, retrospective child support and section 7 arrears were fixed, and future support was based on imputed employment insurance income after the respondent's business failed.

The court denied spousal support, ordered an equalization payment in favour of the respondent, assessed occupation rent with set-offs, and directed sale of the matrimonial home with a net payment from the applicant's share to the respondent.

Following prior proceedings in a family law matter, the court addressed costs entitlement and quantum.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $15,325.19 supported only by counsel’s ledger statement.

The court noted that the request included preparation for attendance at a case conference despite no costs order having been made at that conference.

In the circumstances, the court reduced the requested amount and ordered a lump-sum costs award.

A father sought custody of a young child and permission to relocate from Ontario to Alberta following repeated allegations by the mother that he had sexually abused the child.

Multiple investigations by police, the Children’s Aid Society, and medical professionals found no evidence of sexual abuse.

The court accepted expert psychiatric evidence that the mother’s persistent allegations reflected a delusional fixation that caused significant emotional harm to the child through repeated intrusive examinations and investigations.

Applying the best interests of the child test, including the mobility principles from Gordon v. Goertz, the court concluded the father provided a stable and nurturing environment while the mother posed a significant risk of continued emotional harm.

Sole custody was granted to the father, the mother was denied access, and the father was permitted to relocate with the child to Alberta.

The appellant father appealed final orders regarding custody, access, and child support made by a case conference judge.

The father, who was unrepresented at the conference, had requested an adjournment to retain counsel, which was denied.

The case conference judge proceeded to make final substantive orders based on the mother's offer to settle and an Office of the Children's Lawyer report, despite the lack of consent or formal evidentiary record.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that making opposed final orders at a case conference without proper evidence or procedural fairness constitutes a palpable and overriding error.

The orders were set aside and the matter remitted to the lower court.

The appellant father appealed a child support order made at a case conference in the Ontario Court of Justice that imposed final child support based on imputed income.

The appellate court considered whether the case conference judge had jurisdiction under the Family Law Rules to make a final order where the responding party had notice only of a request for a temporary order.

While the father had failed to comply with disclosure orders and provided inconsistent financial information, the court held that the case conference judge exceeded jurisdiction by making a final order far beyond the relief requested in the conference brief.

The proper order was limited to the temporary child support amount sought in the brief.

The final order was therefore set aside and replaced with a temporary order pending further proceedings.

The court determined costs following family law motion proceedings.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized proportionality and the reasonable expectations of the parties.

The issues were significant but the motions were brief, each lasting only a few hours.

As the applicant was largely successful and had made relevant settlement offers, the court awarded costs for two motion attendances and related questioning.

Costs were fixed at $25,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

A lengthy family law trial addressed custody, access, child support, and equalization following the breakdown of a marriage involving one child.

The court evaluated extensive evidence, including a s. 30 Children’s Law Reform Act assessment, and found that although both parents contributed to ongoing conflict, joint custody was not workable due to their inability to cooperate.

The court accepted the assessor’s recommendation that sole custody be granted to the mother, with structured and liberal access to the father, emphasizing the child’s best interests and the need for stability.

The father’s income was found to be intentionally under‑employed and was imputed for child support purposes.

The court also determined property equalization, preferring the mother’s net family property calculations with limited adjustments.

In an undefended divorce application, the court addressed whether it could rely on a clearance certificate issued by the Central Registry of Divorce Proceedings where the certificate listed an incorrect application filing date and a clearance date that preceded the commencement of the proceeding.

The court reviewed the requirements under ss. 3(2) and 3(3) of the Divorce Act and the Central Registry of Divorce Proceedings Regulations, as well as r. 36 of the Family Law Rules.

The court held that a clearance certificate must accurately state the date the divorce proceeding was commenced and must have a clearance date on or after that date in order for the court to confirm exclusive jurisdiction.

Because the certificate showed a clearance date earlier than the filing date and an incorrect application date, it could not be relied upon.

The court ordered the Central Registry to issue a new clearance certificate reflecting the correct filing date and a clearance date on or after that date.

Following an urgent family law motion regarding temporary custody and parenting arrangements, the court was required to determine costs after the parties left without addressing the issue.

The respondent father sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully obtaining a nesting arrangement for the children and related financial orders.

The court found that the respondent achieved substantial success on the motion and that the applicant mother had engaged in unreasonable conduct by unilaterally removing the children from the matrimonial home and seeking to restrict the father’s parenting time.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that costs should exceed partial indemnity due to the applicant’s conduct.

Costs were therefore awarded to the respondent.