Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The applicant and respondent were unmarried spouses who separated in 2015.

The applicant owned the home they lived in.

Following criminal charges, the applicant was forced to leave the home, and the respondent remained.

The applicant brought an application for a writ of possession and an order that the respondent vacate the property.

The respondent did not participate in the proceedings.

The court found that the respondent had no legal interest in the property and was remaining on the property without lawful justification, constituting trespass.

The court granted the applicant a writ of possession and ordered the respondent to vacate the property.

The respondent brought a motion to terminate an interim without prejudice spousal support order.

The respondent's income had significantly decreased due to job loss, while the applicant's income had increased and surpassed the respondent's.

The court applied the test for varying a temporary support order and found a strong prima facie case for a material change in circumstances.

The court concluded that continuing the order would cause financial hardship and be incongruous and absurd, and therefore terminated the temporary spousal support obligation.

The applicant brought a motion to proceed to an uncontested trial and to sell the matrimonial home after the respondent failed to file an Answer for over three months.

The respondent requested an extension of time to file his responding materials.

The court dismissed the respondent's request, finding the delay inordinate and unexplained.

The court granted the applicant's motion, allowing her to proceed uncontested and ordering the sale of the matrimonial home, with net proceeds to be held in trust.

The parties resolved a motion regarding parenting time and decision-making by way of Temporary Minutes of Settlement.

Both parties subsequently sought costs of the motion.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $8,841.12, while the respondent sought $5,000.00.

The court found that neither party was entirely successful, as the settlement reflected a true compromise and neither party beat their respective offers.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs due to divided success.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking an order to temporarily relocate with the parties' two children to Montreal, Quebec, pending a final determination.

The applicant father opposed the motion.

The court found that the motion was premature, as the proceeding was in its earliest stages, no pleadings had been filed, and the evidentiary record was incomplete and highly conflicted.

The court held that the mother failed to meet the burden of proving that the temporary relocation was in the children's best interests and declined to abridge the 60-day notice requirement under the Divorce Act.

The motion for relocation was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought an uncontested motion to change a final order that had provided for shared decision-making, week-about parenting, and no child support.

Following an incident where the respondent father locked the children out of his home, the children resided exclusively with the applicant.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding both parenting and child support.

After conducting a judicial interview with the two older children, the court awarded the applicant sole decision-making and primary residence, with no contact for the respondent.

The court also imputed an income of $50,000 to the respondent and ordered him to pay Guideline child support and his proportionate share of section 7 expenses.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant brought a motion to change an interim spousal and child support order, claiming a severe reduction in income due to COVID-19, and sought the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent opposed the motion, seeking to maintain exclusive possession of the home and requesting the release of the applicant's share of cottage sale proceeds to satisfy support arrears.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion to change support, finding no substantial change in circumstances as the applicant failed to provide sufficient financial disclosure.

The court also dismissed the motion to sell the matrimonial home based on issue estoppel.

The court ordered $125,000 of the applicant's share of the cottage proceeds to be released to the respondent towards support arrears.

The respondent husband brought a motion for an order to list the jointly-owned matrimonial home for sale under the Partition Act.

The applicant wife opposed the motion, citing health issues, attachment to the community, and alleged oppression by the husband, despite having previously consented to the sale.

The court granted the motion, finding that the sale would not prejudice the wife's substantive family law rights and that her reasons for opposing did not overcome the husband's prima facie right to have the asset sold.

The self-represented appellant father appealed a trial decision terminating his access to his children.

The trial judge had found that the father's erratic, abusive, and controlling behaviour posed a risk of harm to the children, one of whom has autism.

At trial, the father unsuccessfully sought the judge's recusal and subsequently left the courtroom, refusing to participate.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and concluding that the trial judge reasonably proceeded in the father's absence after he voluntarily departed.

The applicant mother, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces stationed in Nova Scotia, brought an urgent motion for extended parenting time with her two children, who resided primarily with the respondent father in Ontario.

The father opposed the children travelling to Nova Scotia, citing disruptions to their education and health risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly given the children's asthma.

The court granted the mother's request for a two-week extended access visit in Nova Scotia, finding that the travel did not pose an inordinate health risk and that restoring the children's relationship with their mother was in their best interests.

The parties, who share joint custody of their 10-year-old daughter, brought competing motions regarding her school attendance for the 2020-2021 school year during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant father sought an order for online learning due to his own autoimmune disease and concerns the child might be genetically predisposed to it.

The respondent mother sought in-person learning, citing the child's learning difficulties and Individual Education Plan.

The court ordered in-person learning, finding it in the child's best interests given her educational needs and the lack of evidence that she was at increased medical risk.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to temporarily suspend a scheduled expansion of the respondent father's parenting time, pending a trial on her Motion to Change.

The mother argued that the father's relocation 55 km away would result in an unreasonable commute for the child.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no material change in circumstances, as the final order explicitly permitted relocation within the Greater Toronto Area and there was no expert evidence showing the commute would harm the child.

Following a four-day family law trial where the applicant mother was largely successful on the issues of custody and parenting, she sought partial indemnity costs of $17,000.

The respondent father, who was self-represented, did not provide costs submissions.

The court awarded the applicant $10,000 in costs, noting the respondent's refusal to accept a clinical investigator's findings and insistence on a trial.

Half of the costs award ($5,000) was designated as a support order to be collected by the Family Responsibility Office.

The appellant father appealed an interim order dismissing his motion to vary his access to his child from supervised to unsupervised, and the subsequent costs order of $5,000.

The appeal court found that the motions judge carefully reviewed the evidentiary record, including the Office of the Children's Lawyer report and supervised access notes, and made no error in law or misapprehension of facts.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court emphasizing that appeals of interim orders are discouraged and the matter should proceed to trial.

The parties separated and the wife, who suffers from severe mental illness, sought to reconcile out of a delusional fear for her child's safety.

The husband agreed to reconcile only if she signed a Marriage Contract waiving all rights to spousal support and equalization.

The husband failed to disclose his purchase of a property and a significant withdrawal from their joint account.

The court found that the husband exploited the wife's vulnerability, that she signed the contract under duress, and that she did not understand its consequences due to the non-disclosure.

The court exercised its discretion under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act to set aside the Marriage Contract.

The Applicant sought interim custody, child and spousal support, release of matrimonial home proceeds, and disclosure.

The Respondent sought temporary sole or shared custody, primary residence in Florida, supervised access for the Applicant, and a s. 30 assessment.

The court granted the Applicant temporary sole custody, established a parenting schedule allowing the child to travel to Florida one week per month, ordered the Respondent to pay $75,000 monthly in temporary child and spousal support, and released the net proceeds of the matrimonial home to the Applicant.

The Respondent's motion for a s. 30 assessment was dismissed without prejudice, and his request for a sealing order was adjourned for further submissions.

The court also ordered the Respondent to provide comprehensive financial disclosure.

In a high-conflict separation, the respondent father brought a motion for temporary sole custody of the parties' two children, while the applicant mother sought joint custody.

The court found that the parents were unable to communicate effectively and that important decisions, particularly regarding the children's need for counseling, required timely resolution.

The court granted temporary sole custody to the father to ensure these decisions could be made, while ordering a specified access schedule for the mother, including alternate weekends and weekday evenings.

A request for a non-harassment order was dismissed as unnecessary given the parties' consent to communicate only via email about child-focused issues.

The payor brought an application under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act seeking to terminate spousal and child support and rescind significant arrears arising from a 2004 support order.

The court found the payor voluntarily left a high‑income managerial position and failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain comparable employment or provide adequate financial disclosure, warranting imputation of income at $135,000.

While the recipient spouse had retrained, gained employment, and remarried, these changes justified only prospective termination of spousal support from the date of effective notice in 2013.

Child support arrears were not rescinded and additional post‑secondary education expenses were added to the arrears.

Spousal support was terminated effective September 1, 2013, with arrears after that date rescinded.

The applicant father brought a motion for judgment seeking sole custody and limited supervised access, arguing the respondent mother had delayed a previously ordered custody and access assessment.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to dismiss the motion for judgment, reinstate her supervised access, and order the completion of the assessment.

The court dismissed the motion for judgment, finding that completing the assessment was in the child's best interests given the mother's treatable mental health issues.

The court ordered the assessment to be completed, reinstated supervised access, and ordered the applicant to pay the assessment fees in lieu of costs.

In a family law proceeding, the court considered whether the respondent should be declared a “special party” under Rule 4 of the Family Law Rules due to incapacity to participate in the litigation.

The applicant alleged the respondent was failing to participate in proceedings involving significant matrimonial property, including a jointly owned matrimonial home.

The court applied the “understand and appreciate” test for capacity and considered evidence of the respondent’s non-participation and prior mental health history.

Finding that the respondent was unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of failing to engage in the litigation and that no suitable representative was available, the court declared the respondent a special party.

The Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed as litigation guardian.