Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

On a family law motion, the moving party sought interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home pending trial under ss. 19 and 24 of the Family Law Act.

The court reviewed the statutory factors, including the children’s best interests, existing orders, financial circumstances, availability of alternative accommodation, and allegations of violence.

The evidentiary record was materially conflicting, lacked corroboration on key allegations, and did not permit credibility findings on the paper record.

The court found no sufficient basis to conclude that continued shared occupation posed an adverse impact warranting interim exclusive possession.

The motion was dismissed and partial indemnity costs were awarded to the non-moving party.

An uncontested trial in a family law matter involving a divorce application and ancillary relief.

The respondent mother sought sole decision-making responsibility for seven children, child support of $1,740 per month based on an imputed income of $60,000 for the applicant father, and orders dispensing with the applicant's consent for government documents, international travel, and removal from the Greater Toronto Area.

The applicant was noted in default and did not appear.

The court granted all relief sought, finding that sole decision-making was in the best interests of the children given the respondent's role as primary caregiver and the applicant's minimal involvement.

Child support was ordered with credit for $12,000 already paid.

Costs of $7,571 were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant and respondent, former partners, both sought the sale of their jointly owned property.

While agreeing on the sale, they disputed the distribution of net proceeds, with the respondent claiming sole beneficial ownership or a constructive trust due to her significantly larger financial and labour contributions.

The court dismissed the respondent's claim for a resulting trust but found unjust enrichment by the applicant.

The court ordered that after the respondent is reimbursed for her downpayment and renovation costs, the remaining net proceeds be divided 17% to the applicant and 83% to the respondent, reflecting their respective financial contributions to the mortgage and carrying costs.

This case addresses a mother's (N.F.) cross-motion to relocate with her child from Barrie to Orangeville, opposed by the father (S.G.).

The court determined the move constituted a "relocation" under the Children's Law Reform Act, requiring 60 days' notice, which the mother failed to provide.

Despite the notice deficiency, the court found the relocation to be in the child's best interests, considering the mother's economic necessity, the availability of family support in Orangeville, and the child's young age.

The court ordered a new parenting schedule, granting the mother primary residence in Orangeville starting September 2023, with the father having three weekends per month and one mid-week overnight.

The applicant brought a motion to compel the sale of a jointly owned property in the context of ongoing family litigation.

The respondent opposed the sale, arguing it would be contrary to the children's best interests and that she wished to purchase the applicant's interest if successful in her equitable claims at trial.

The court granted the motion, finding that the property was not the principal residence of either party, the applicant was incurring significant carrying costs, and the sale would not negatively impact the children.

The court ordered the property sold and the net proceeds paid into court.

The case involved two motions: the Applicant sought temporary spousal and child support retroactive to June 1, 2021, and the Respondent sought to remove the Applicant's counsel, claim tort damages for intrusion upon seclusion, and prevent reliance on improperly obtained emails.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion for tort damages as improperly pleaded and premature, and dismissed the motion to remove counsel, finding no evidence of confidential information being shared with counsel.

The court granted the Applicant's motion for interim spousal support of $4,000 per month and child support of $329 per month, both retroactive to July 1, 2021, after imputing an income of $14,500 to the Applicant and deducting the child's ODSP benefits from the child support calculation.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to enforce a prior order for in-person supervised contact with his two children.

The respondent mother opposed, citing extreme distress and self-harm attempts by the older child when faced with the prospect of seeing the father.

The court declined to order police enforcement, finding it unwise given the child's distress.

Instead, the court ordered a structured plan involving the Office of the Children's Lawyer or the court-approved supervisors to inform the children of the supervision terms and ascertain their willingness to attend, with virtual contact ordered if they remain adamant against in-person visits.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking parenting time with the four children and an order for two children to return to their previous school after the respondent mother unilaterally moved out with the children and changed their school.

The mother alleged physical and emotional abuse and sought sole custody with supervised access.

The court found the father's alleged "confession" from the mother to be coerced, indicating controlling behavior.

While acknowledging the mother's unilateral action in changing schools, the court prioritized the children's best interests, particularly regarding school stability.

The court granted the father alternate weekend parenting time with all four children and one evening per week with two children, but denied supervised access and ordered the children to remain in their new school for the current term, with the issue to be revisited.

The respondent brought a motion to terminate her child support obligations for two adult children, arguing they were no longer enrolled in educational programs and thus not "children of the marriage" under the Divorce Act.

The applicant opposed, asserting the children remained dependants and sought to stay the motion due to arrears.

The court denied the stay, finding the respondent's arrears did not warrant it.

The court determined that while a "gap year" is permissible, the children's extended periods out of school, by choice, meant they no longer qualified for support.

Child support for one child was terminated effective December 2019 and for the other effective June 2020, resulting in a significant overpayment to the respondent.

The decision was made without prejudice to future applications if the children re-enroll.

The parties separated after a 13-year high-conflict relationship.

Both sought sole custody of their two children.

The court found both parents capable but unable to communicate effectively, ordering joint custody with a parallel parenting regime.

The father's request to impute income to the mother was dismissed.

Due to the shared and split custody arrangements, and considering the financial realities of both households under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines, the court ordered no ongoing child support, though fixed arrears were ordered against the father for a prior period.

The father's request for a restraining order was dismissed.

The applicant sought costs following a successful family law trial where the court terminated the respondent's access to the children and awarded retroactive child support.

The respondent failed to file written costs submissions despite being granted extensions.

The court found that while the respondent's desire to pursue access did not warrant full recovery costs, his unreasonable conduct, including denying criminal convictions and failing to produce financial disclosure, lengthened the trial.

The court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $14,000.

This costs endorsement followed multiple motions concerning the administration of the Estate of Peter Trezzi.

The court applied the modern approach to costs in estate litigation, considering public policy factors and the general civil litigation costs regime.

Costs were determined for four main matters: ownership of 18 Boyle Drive, extension of the applicant's Family Law Act rights, corporate assets, and share ownership of Across Canada Construction Ltd. The court also addressed costs for an adjournment motion, production orders, and consent orders.

The decision allocated costs between parties and the Estate, often finding that the Estate should bear costs due to issues arising from the deceased's actions or ambiguities in the will.

La requérante mère a demandé une modification de la structure parentale pour obtenir la garde exclusive en raison du manque de coopération de l'intimé père et de son non-respect d'une ordonnance antérieure.

L'intimé père s'est opposé à cette demande et a sollicité une garde partagée ainsi qu'une réduction de la pension alimentaire.

Le tribunal a constaté une relation parentale conflictuelle et problématique, rendant potentiellement la garde conjointe inopérante.

Une évaluation par le Bureau de l'avocat des enfants a été ordonnée pour obtenir des preuves objectives.

En attendant, le tribunal a rendu des ordonnances définitives concernant l'assurance vie du père, le maintien de la pension alimentaire à 1 000 $ par mois, et l'octroi de 768 $ d'arriérés pour dépenses spéciales et extraordinaires à la mère.

Des ordonnances provisoires ont également été émises pour l'accès estival, les méthodes de communication et les modalités d'échange des enfants.

The applicant father sought sole custody, supervised access for the respondent mother, and the elimination of spousal and child support, citing the mother's severe alcohol addiction and relapses following their separation agreement.

The mother, who was residing in a rehabilitation facility during the trial, sought to maintain joint custody and eventually resume equal shared parenting.

The court ordered joint custody, implementing a transition plan with supervised access and mandatory alcohol testing, leading to equal shared parenting once the mother demonstrated sustained sobriety.

The court also imputed incomes to both parties and ordered the father to pay ongoing spousal and child support, including arrears.

The applicant brought an unopposed motion to change a 2009 family court order relating to child support, income determination, and section 7 expenses for two children.

The court accepted the applicant’s evidence regarding the respondent’s employment income where the respondent failed to provide financial disclosure but declined to impute additional income based on speculative evidence.

The court also rejected certain claimed extracurricular and counselling expenses as section 7 expenses due to insufficient evidentiary support.

The order was varied to adjust child support and to establish each parent’s proportionate contribution toward post-secondary education expenses after a deemed child contribution.

Ongoing disclosure obligations and payment mechanisms were also ordered.

Following an undefended trial in a common-law family dispute, the court addressed claims for child support, spousal support, and property remedies grounded in unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and proprietary estoppel.

The applicant alleged that the respondent used her assets to acquire numerous investment properties in Canada and Florida and concealed ownership through corporations solely controlled by him.

The court found that the parties had engaged in a joint family venture and that the respondent had wrongfully diverted and concealed assets, depriving the applicant of her contributions.

Applying principles from Kerr v. Baranow and related authorities, the court awarded a constructive trust remedy and ordered the respondent to pay US$2.2 million reflecting the value of the Florida properties.

The court also imputed income to the respondent for support purposes and ordered child support, lump sum spousal support, and related financial relief.

The parties separated and the mother relocated to Stoney Creek for employment, seeking to move the children to Milton.

Both parents brought motions for interim custody and primary residence.

The court applied the test for interim mobility, finding the mother failed to establish compelling reasons that moving the children from their established community, schools, and routines in Port Elgin was in their best interests.

The court ordered interim joint custody with the children's primary residence to be with the father in Port Elgin, and granted the mother liberal access.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support, disclosure of the respondent's medical records, and a restraining order following a nine-year marriage.

The court dismissed the claim for spousal support, finding the applicant was economically self-sufficient and not disadvantaged by the marriage.

The request for 20 years of the respondent's medical records to prove he transmitted Herpes II was dismissed as overly invasive, lacking expert evidentiary foundation, and moot since the divorce claim was severed.

The request for a restraining order was also dismissed as the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds to fear for her safety.

The applicant father failed to appear at the family law trial.

The respondent mother sought sole custody of their four children, child support, supervised access for the father, a restraining order, and authorization to travel with the children without the father's consent.

The court heard evidence of the father's abusive behavior and attempts to manipulate the children.

The court granted all of the mother's requests, imputing an annual income of $16,000 to the father for the purpose of calculating child support.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support, child support, and other relief, seeking to set aside the spousal support waiver in the parties' marriage contract.

The parties separated after a 30-year marriage during which they enjoyed a lavish lifestyle, and the respondent husband's net worth grew to approximately $500 million.

The court found the marriage contract's support waiver to be unconscionable and severed it from the agreement.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $175,000 per month, retroactive to the date of separation, and to maintain life insurance and health benefits for the applicant.

The claim for interim child support was dismissed.