Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The applicant wife brought an urgent without-notice motion for a restraining order under s. 46 of the Family Law Act against the respondent husband, who had been accused of running a Ponzi-type scheme and whose conduct since separation included a barrage of threatening emails and text messages demanding money.

The court found that while the applicant subjectively feared for her safety, the evidence did not objectively establish reasonable grounds to conclude her safety was at risk, and declined to grant the restraining order.

However, the court granted a non-contact order under s. 47.1 of the FLA, prohibiting the respondent from contacting the applicant except through counsel and from coming within 200 metres of the former matrimonial home, the applicant's workplace, and her mother's home, for a period of 14 days.

The plaintiff son brought an action to set aside an agreement to transfer his house to his defendant father and stepmother, claiming he signed it under duress.

The defendants counterclaimed for specific performance of the agreement.

The court found the plaintiff was not a credible witness and dismissed the claim of duress, holding the agreement was valid and enforceable.

However, the court declined to order specific performance, finding the property was not unique to the defendants and damages were an adequate remedy.

The defendants were awarded $48,384.72 in damages for loans, rent, and property expenses, and were ordered to vacate the premises within six months.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking a temporary order for primary residency of the child, a change in school, disallowing the mother from school pick-ups, a 12-panel hair follicle drug test for the mother, and suspension of the mother's parenting time, along with child support adjustments.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the mother's unexplained absence from the child's life for approximately eight months following the signing of Minutes of Settlement.

The court granted the father primary residency and ordered drug testing for the mother, structuring a slow reintegration of her parenting time contingent on clean urine tests.

The request to change the child's school was denied at this stage, and child support obligations were adjusted, with the mother ordered to pay support to the father.

The respondent brought a motion alleging a binding settlement for the purchase of the applicant's interest in their jointly owned home, based on pre-litigation counsel correspondence.

The court examined whether such correspondence could constitute a domestic contract under s. 55(1) of the Family Law Act.

The court concluded that pre-litigation correspondence cannot form a binding domestic contract due to the strict statutory requirements of writing, signatures, and witnessing, and the distinction between pre-litigation negotiation and active litigation settlements.

The motion was dismissed, and the court found as a fact the value of the applicant's equity interest in the property at separation.

The applicant sought spousal support and property relief following a 35-year marriage.

The respondent husband, residing in Dubai, had obtained a Sharia 'talaq' divorce without notice to the applicant.

The court refused to recognize the foreign divorce under the Divorce Act, finding a lack of natural justice.

The court awarded the applicant indefinite spousal support, payable as a lump sum from the respondent's share of the matrimonial home proceeds.

The court also found a resulting trust over properties held by the parties' daughters and vested the respondent's interest in those properties in the applicant to secure support arrears.

The mother brought a motion to change a joint custody order, seeking sole custody of the parties' 8-year-old daughter.

The father responded by also seeking sole custody.

The court found a material change in circumstances as the parents could no longer communicate effectively, rendering joint custody unworkable.

After an 8-day trial featuring evidence from the Office of the Children's Lawyer and the child's psychotherapist, the court awarded sole custody to the father.

The court found the father provided a more stable environment, ensured regular school attendance, and fostered the child's extracurricular activities.

The mother's access was ordered to remain unsupervised, conditional upon her engaging in counselling to address her parenting skills and anger towards the father.

Claims for child support were dismissed due to the mother's limited income.

The parties brought competing motions to determine where their three-year-old child should attend Junior Kindergarten.

The applicant mother proposed a school in Hamilton, while the respondent father proposed a school in Jarvis, an hour away.

The parties had previously shared parenting time equally.

The court found that maintaining the equal timesharing arrangement with the child attending school in Jarvis would require excessive travel and be fatiguing for the child.

The court ordered the child to be enrolled in Hamilton and modified the parenting schedule to grant the respondent three out of four weekends and mid-week overnights, minimizing travel while preserving significant parenting time.

Set-off child support was also ordered.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion for financial disclosure in a family law proceeding.

The respondent had repeatedly failed to provide required financial information, necessitating multiple court orders.

The court found that the respondent behaved unreasonably and acted in bad faith by failing to provide full, timely, and accurate disclosure.

Consequently, pursuant to Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs on a full recovery basis in the amount of $19,713.50.

Brody David Streeter (father) brought a motion to change two final orders, seeking sole custody of his two children, Ryder and Piper, from Stephanie Erin Hodgins (mother).

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's increased role and the children's residence with him.

Based on the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) report and the parents' plans of care, the court granted sole custody to the father, with liberal access to the mother.

The decision also addressed communication, counselling, health card custody, holiday schedules, and a prohibition on the mother's new partner being alone with the children.

Child support was set at no base support, with Section 7 extraordinary expenses shared equally.

The Respondent/Father brought an urgent motion to vary an existing custody order, seeking sole custody of their 14-year-old son (XR) due to mental health concerns and self-harm behaviors.

The Applicant/Mother opposed.

The court ordered XR to return to the Mother's home, requested the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) to re-assign counsel for XR, directed continued CAS services, and adjourned the Father's motion to vary custody to a case conference.

Medical and police records related to XR were ordered sealed in the court file.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice reconsidered spousal support and costs following a direction from the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal had found the trial judge's initial determination of the wife's income for support purposes unclear.

The trial judge, Harper J., was tasked with re-evaluating the wife's income, particularly regarding capital gains from a one-time share sale, and its impact on periodic spousal support, as well as reconsidering the costs award.

The court imputed an annual income of $282,119 to the wife based on the reasonable investment yield of her capital resources and pension income, and ordered the husband to pay $8,000 per month in spousal support.

The court also found the wife's conduct amounted to bad faith in driving litigation, leading to a substantial costs award against her, requiring her to pay $322,125.70 to the husband.

The Applicant brought a motion to change, seeking to terminate or reduce her spousal support obligation to the Respondent, retroactive to December 1, 2014, citing her new family obligations and financial hardship.

The Respondent opposed, requesting higher support due to his ongoing medical issues and inability to work.

The court, treating the matter as a review, reduced spousal support retroactively to $800 per month and prospectively to $1,000 per month, departing from the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) ranges.

This departure was justified by the Applicant's new biological children and her assumption of significant marital debts, as well as the Respondent's continued need for support.

A further review was ordered for June 2018 to assess the Respondent's medical condition and efforts towards self-sufficiency.

The respondent mother brought a motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, interim support, and a temporary parenting order.

The parties continued to reside together post-separation, creating a highly acrimonious and stressful environment for the children.

The court granted the mother exclusive possession, finding it in the children's best interests to remain in their established neighborhood with their primary caregiver.

The court also ordered shared parenting, interim support of $2,000 per month plus household expenses, and comprehensive financial disclosure from the father.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the child protection agency sought summary judgment declaring a child in need of protection and requesting Crown wardship without access.

The court applied the Rule 16 summary judgment test from the Family Law Rules and found no genuine issue requiring trial on the question of protection status, relying on extensive evidence including prior child protection history, parental risk factors, and a psychological parenting capacity assessment.

However, the court held that the question of the child’s best interests and whether Crown wardship without access was appropriate required a full trial, particularly in light of evidence suggesting the mother possessed some caregiving capacity and had offered explanations for past conduct.

The motion was therefore granted in part, with a protection finding entered but the issue of permanent wardship reserved for trial.

The applicant mother brought a motion to vary an interim custody and access order concerning the parties’ young child, arguing that a recent parenting assessment constituted a material change in circumstances.

The expert report raised concerns that the father’s conduct toward the child, including involving the child in parental conflict and making alarming statements, risked emotional harm and suggested emerging parental alienation.

The father challenged the report and obtained a separate psychosocial evaluation based primarily on his own account.

The court accepted the parenting assessment as the only objective expert evidence and found a material change in circumstances.

Custody was granted to the mother with the father’s access supervised pending further proceedings.

A family law trial addressing custody, access, child support, and a claim for occupational rent following the parties’ separation.

The court considered the best interests of the children under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act and the history of conflict between the parents, including past peace bonds and communication difficulties.

Evidence showed the mother had been the primary caregiver and provided a stable home environment, while the father’s involvement had been inconsistent.

Joint custody was rejected due to the absence of demonstrated historical cooperation and effective communication between the parties.

The court ordered guideline child support and dismissed the father’s claim for occupational rent, finding it barred by the parties’ separation agreement and unsupported on the evidence.

The parties separated after 12.5 years of marriage and resolved custody and access of their three children.

At trial, the court determined the applicant's income for child support purposes, imputing additional income due to undisclosed earnings from various side businesses.

The court ordered retroactive child support and found that the children's extensive athletic and musical activities qualified as Section 7 extraordinary expenses, requiring proportionate contribution from the applicant.

The court also valued the matrimonial home, accounting for necessary roof repairs, and calculated the equalization of net family properties, applying various set-offs against the equalization payment owed by the respondent.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking expanded parenting time with his young child, including overnight access, while the respondent mother sought sole custody and continued supervised access for the father.

The court considered allegations of past domestic violence, the child’s young age, the status quo of supervised access, and recommendations from an Office of the Children’s Lawyer investigation.

The court found that while concerns regarding anger issues existed, the strict supervision regime was overly restrictive and risk could be managed through structured conditions.

The child remained primarily in the mother’s care, but the court ordered a graduated schedule increasing the father’s parenting time and introducing overnight access.

The order included behavioural conditions, supervision within the father’s household, and a future review following renewed OCL involvement.

The applicant brought a motion to confirm the terms of a final order arising from handwritten Minutes of Settlement reached on the first day of a scheduled family law trial.

The parties disagreed on the interpretation and wording of several provisions relating to support, corporate liabilities, parenting arrangements, insurance obligations, and arrears.

The court analyzed the handwritten Minutes of Settlement and competing draft orders filed by the parties to determine the parties’ true agreement.

The court largely adopted the respondent’s draft wording for several provisions where it clarified procedural or operational details, but otherwise enforced the original handwritten terms.

The court also ordered the applicant to pay $12,000 based on the parties’ shared assumption during negotiations that such payment had been made.

The father brought a motion for contempt alleging the mother breached a divorce order requiring the parties’ children to reside on an alternating weekly basis with each parent.

The mother brought a motion to change the custody provisions, asserting the shared parenting arrangement was no longer workable and that the children experienced stress and conflict under the schedule.

The court held that contempt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence did not show the mother intentionally breached the order; the older child had independently refused to continue the arrangement.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the children’s consistent preferences and the ongoing parental conflict.

The order was varied to maintain joint custody with primary residence with the mother and flexible access to the father consistent with the children’s wishes.