Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support following the parties' separation.

The respondent claimed inability to pay and disputed entitlement.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie case for spousal support based on her need and the length of the marriage.

Due to inconsistencies in the respondent's financial disclosure and reported expenses far exceeding his reported income, the court imputed his income at $142,598 based on the average of his reported yearly expenses.

Interim child support and spousal support were ordered to commence following the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant sought to set aside a marriage contract executed in St. Lucia the day before the parties' wedding.

The court determined that Ontario law applied to the contract.

Although the contract met the formal requirements of the Family Law Act, the court found grounds to set it aside under section 56(4).

The respondent failed to disclose significant assets, including his pension and real property, the applicant did not understand the nature or consequences of the contract, and she signed it under duress related to her immigration status.

The court exercised its discretion to set aside the agreement due to substantial unfairness in the bargaining process.

Following a previous decision regarding an adjournment request in a child protection matter, the court selected a lawyer from a list provided by Legal Aid Ontario to act as amicus curiae.

The parties brought urgent motions for interim parenting and child support.

The mother sought primary care and sole decision-making, alleging a history of family violence and alcohol abuse by the father, who had recently returned from working in Alberta and quit his job.

The court found the status quo prior to separation was that the mother was the primary caregiver.

The court granted the mother interim primary care and sole decision-making responsibility, ordered a specified parenting schedule for the father with alcohol prohibitions, and imputed income to the father for the purpose of interim child support.

The moving party mother brought a motion for an interim order permitting her to relocate with the parties' six-year-old child to another city for employment reasons.

The responding party father opposed the move and sought a shared parenting arrangement.

The court found that it was premature to permit relocation on an interim basis given the conflicting evidence and the significant disruption it would cause to the child's status quo and the father's parenting time.

The court dismissed the relocation motion, adjourning the issue to trial, and ordered a shared-care parenting schedule on a four-day rotation.

The mother and father brought competing motions for interim parenting orders, child support, and a section 30 parenting assessment regarding their three children.

The family experienced high conflict post-separation, with the middle child refusing to sleep at the father's home due to anxiety.

The court dismissed the father's request for a section 30 assessment to avoid further delay and cost.

The court ordered a graduated parenting schedule to reintroduce the middle child to the father's home, maintained the existing schedules for the other two children, and ordered the father to pay offset interim child support.

The applicant sought to enforce a notice of garnishment to collect a $21,082 debt owed by the respondent pursuant to a family law settlement order.

The respondent disputed the garnishment, arguing she could not refinance her home to pay the debt because the applicant had not yet released her from liability on their jointly owned home's mortgage, as required by the same order.

The court found the conditions of the settlement order were not severable and the applicant's fulfilment of his obligations was essential to the respondent fulfilling hers.

The notices of garnishment were quashed.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary sole custody and week-about access of the parties' 11-year-old child, alleging the respondent father was alienating the child from her.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion to retain temporary custody and major decision-making authority.

The court declined to change the child's living arrangements pending a section 30 assessment, noting the child's established school routine and the potential disruption.

The court ordered that the child continue to reside with the respondent father, with specified parenting time for the applicant mother, joint major decision-making, and child support payable by the applicant mother.

The applicant father, residing in Alberta, sought to confirm a provisional order reducing his child support obligations and arrears for his three children residing in Ontario with the respondent mother.

The father claimed a reduction in income due to cataracts and that the oldest child was no longer a child of the marriage.

The court refused to confirm the provisional order's reduction of arrears, finding the father was intentionally underemployed and had engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to pay support.

The court suspended support for the oldest child pending further evidence of her law school enrollment, but ordered ongoing table support for the two younger children based on the father's imputed income.

The appellants, the mother and a family friend, appealed a disposition order placing a 10-year-old child in the extended care of the Society for the purpose of adoption.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in relying on a court-ordered parenting assessment, making different access orders for siblings, and failing to recognize their remedial efforts.

The appeal court admitted some fresh evidence but ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors and properly prioritized the child's best interests.

Following the breakdown of their common law relationship, the parties sought to divide the net proceeds from the sale of their jointly owned home.

The applicant claimed an unequal division based on unjust enrichment for paying the mortgage, while the respondent's father claimed repayment for a $6,000 loan and the cost of home renovations he performed.

The court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding the parties had agreed to share expenses according to their means.

The court ordered the $6,000 loan to be repaid from the joint proceeds but found the home renovations were a gift, rebutting the presumption of a resulting trust.

The net proceeds were divided with specific adjustments for initial contributions, closing costs, and legal fees.

The Children's Aid Society moved for summary judgment to grant custody of a 13-year-old child to his maternal aunt.

The mother, who was self-represented, failed to file responding materials or attend the hearing.

The court noted the mother's outstanding criminal charges, mental health issues, and inability to fulfill her proposed plans of care.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted the motion and ordered custody to the maternal aunt under section 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, with access to the mother at the aunt's discretion.

The parties brought cross-motions for interim relief following their separation.

The court maintained the existing interim parenting schedule, finding that the applicant's proposed increase in overnight visits was not in the young children's best interests at this time.

The court declined to order a s. 30 assessment due to potential delay.

For interim support, the applicant's income was set at $300,000 based on his expert's report, and the respondent's imputed income was set at $25,000.

The respondent's request for a $108,000 interim disbursement was denied; instead, the court ordered the parties to secure a line of credit against the matrimonial home to fund litigation and private school expenses.

The respondent was granted interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The applicant father and respondent mother brought cross-motions for interim custody and access of their two-year-old child.

The mother sought interim sole custody due to the child's concerning behaviors following access visits and a suspected milk allergy, which the father dismissed.

The father sought interim joint custody and equal parenting time, relying on the maximum contact principle.

The court granted interim sole custody to the mother, finding the father's dismissive attitude toward the child's symptoms and need for control were not in the child's best interests.

The court ordered a graduated increase in the father's access time but rejected his request for equal parenting time, emphasizing that the maximum contact principle must be subject to the child's best interests under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The applicant father sought costs following a successful motion regarding the children's school attendance.

He claimed costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to an offer to settle.

The respondent mother argued against a costs award, citing her limited financial means and reasonable behaviour.

The court found the applicant's docketed hours excessive but acknowledged his entitlement to costs based on his successful offer to settle.

Considering the mother's limited means and the principle of proportionality, the court fixed costs at $8,000, payable within 60 days of a final order in the ongoing family law proceedings.

The applicant sought costs following a motion for retroactive and ongoing spousal support, where the respondent brought a cross-motion for child support and extraordinary expenses.

Success was divided, and neither party's offer to settle was clearly superior.

However, the court found the applicant was sufficiently successful to warrant partial indemnity costs, having obtained a sizeable award for spousal support.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of $5,500 plus HST.

The applicant brought a motion to vary a 1997 consent order that had found the respondent to be the father of the child but required no child support due to the respondent’s inability to pay.

The applicant sought retroactive child support for three years prior to the motion and a contribution to the child’s post‑secondary education expenses.

The court found the original order contemplated support once the respondent became able to pay and that the respondent had failed to notify the applicant of changes in his financial circumstances as required.

While the court accepted retroactive support, it reduced the table amounts due to the respondent’s obligations to support multiple other children and the hardship that full table payments would create.

The respondent was ordered to pay reduced retroactive and ongoing child support until April 2016 and to contribute to post‑secondary expenses, along with partial indemnity costs.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after a short relationship, with the mother maintaining primary care of their young son.

The mother sought sole custody, while the father sought joint custody.

The court found that the parties had a high-conflict relationship characterized by poor communication, largely driven by the father's rigid and uncooperative behaviour.

Applying the principles from Kaplanis, the court concluded that joint custody was unworkable and awarded sole custody to the mother to ensure stability and effective decision-making for the child.

The responding spouse brought a motion to vary long-standing support orders made following divorce.

The court considered whether the spousal support order, which was based on an "expected" income and set for a fixed duration, could be varied due to subsequent fluctuations in the payor’s income.

It held that the parties had intentionally fixed the spousal support amount for a defined period despite known income volatility, and variation was not warranted.

Child support, however, was reconsidered.

The court terminated child support when the child ceased to be a child of the marriage and later ordered support during post-secondary studies based on an imputed income.

Following partial minutes of settlement resolving parenting and certain support issues, the court conducted a trial to determine retroactive child support, retroactive and ongoing section 7 expenses, spousal support, property equalization, and entitlement to the child tax benefit.

The court accepted the applicant’s evidence regarding the historical residence of the children and ordered retroactive child support based on the respondent’s imputed income after he voluntarily left his employment.

The court also awarded retroactive section 7 expenses and directed the parties to share future extraordinary expenses equally.

Although entitlement to spousal support was established, no award was made due to the respondent’s child support obligations.

The court further ordered a modest equalization payment and granted a restraining order against the respondent.