Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

Following a trial where the applicant was awarded $3 million in lump-sum spousal support, the court determined the applicant's entitlement to prejudgment interest and costs.

The court awarded $129,698 in prejudgment interest, finding no reason to exercise its discretion to disallow it.

The court also awarded the applicant $670,000 in costs, noting she was entirely successful on the primary issue of spousal support and had made a qualifying offer to settle that entitled her to full recovery of costs from the date of the offer.

The applicant father, a civil litigation lawyer with no family law experience, sought to adjourn his family court trial to retain new counsel after his previous lawyer was removed from the record.

The respondent mother opposed a lengthy adjournment, emphasizing the need for timely resolution, particularly concerning the child's proposed relocation to Ireland and the upcoming school year.

The court granted a shorter adjournment than requested by the father, rescheduling the trial to June 2024, making it peremptory on the father, and conditionally delaying the sale of the matrimonial home to align with the new trial date, balancing the father's need for representation with the child's best interests and the mother's right to timely resolution.

The moving party (former husband) brought a motion to stay and suspend his spousal support obligations on an interim basis following the termination of his employment.

The responding party (former wife) opposed the motion, arguing she still required support and that the moving party had received a significant severance package.

The court applied the four-part test for an interim variation of a final support order and found the moving party established a strong prima facie case, hardship, urgency, and clean hands.

The court granted the motion, ordering the stay and suspension of spousal support obligations prospectively, effective March 31, 2023.

The moving party father brought a motion for the production of his children's health and counselling records from four service providers, including records relating to one child's gender-affirming care.

The children, who were capable of consenting under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, refused consent.

The court dismissed the father's request under section 20(5) of the Children's Law Reform Act, finding broad disclosure was not in the children's best interests given the high-conflict separation and allegations of family violence.

Under Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered production of the reunification therapist's records and limited information about the children's enrollment in counselling.

However, the court found the individual counselling and gender-affirming care records were privileged under the Wigmore test and dismissed the motion for their production.

This endorsement addresses two motions brought under Family Law Rule 25(19) to correct errors in a prior judgment.

The Applicant's motion sought to correct a misapprehension of evidence regarding a shared debt's quantum, which the court granted, adjusting the amount from $325,000 to $650,000.

The Respondent Imran Khan's motion sought to reduce a retroactive spousal support lump sum award by considering income tax consequences.

The court dismissed this motion, ruling that FLR 25(19)(b) and (c) do not provide jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions or errors of law, only typographical or mathematical errors, or matters not previously decided.

The parties separated after an 11-year marriage and sought resolution of numerous financial issues, including equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, child support, spousal support, and occupation rent.

The court interpreted their Marriage Contract to allow for equalization while excluding specific properties.

The court calculated the equalization payment, ordered post-separation adjustments for carrying costs and joint debts, and awarded the respondent occupation rent for the applicant's exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court also imputed an income of $80,000 to the applicant due to intentional underemployment, dismissed her claim for spousal support, and calculated retrospective child support and section 7 expenses, ultimately resulting in a net payment owed by the applicant to the respondent.

This is a costs endorsement following a lengthy trial in a family law proceeding.

The Applicant sought over $500,000 in costs, arguing she was entirely successful on all issues, particularly custody and access, and that her settlement offers were bested at trial.

The Respondent opposed, arguing the costs were unreasonable and that the Applicant was not entitled to pre-trial costs or full indemnity.

The court awarded the Applicant partial indemnity costs of $454,968.78, finding her largely successful and noting the Respondent's unreasonable conduct and failure to accept reasonable settlement offers.

The court declined to sever and make a portion of the costs collectible as child support.

This trial concerned custody and access to the parties' child, Pyper.

The father sought sole custody and limited access, citing the mother's history of drug addiction, mental illness, and alleged refusal to acknowledge the child's special needs.

The mother sought joint custody and a gradually increasing access schedule, asserting her recovery and ability to co-parent.

The court found the mother had made significant gains in her recovery and granted joint custody, emphasizing the child's best interests require both parents' involvement.

A gradual increase in the mother's access was ordered, with specific schedules for regular parenting time and holidays, and provisions for ongoing drug testing for the mother.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking permission for six international and domestic trips with the child during the school year.

The respondent mother opposed, emphasizing the high-conflict history, the importance of maintaining the established parallel parenting schedule to minimize parental conflict, and concerns about the child missing school.

The court dismissed five of the six proposed trips, finding them too disruptive and contrary to the child's best interests, particularly regarding school attendance and schedule stability.

However, one trip to Disney World was permitted, with specific arrangements for pick-up, return, and make-up parenting time, as it was deemed child-focused and minimally disruptive.

The court also addressed the respondent's non-compliance with procedural orders regarding affidavit formatting, declining to strike her affidavit but noting potential cost implications.

The applicant father brought an urgent, ex parte motion for a temporary order preventing the respondent mother from removing their six-year-old daughter from the Greater Toronto Area and requiring the surrender of the child's passport.

The mother had recently removed the child from Dubai to Lebanon, and then to Canada, without the father's consent.

The court found jurisdiction under section 40 of the Children's Law Reform Act, concluding the child was wrongfully removed to Ontario and that a temporary non-removal order was in the child's best interests to prevent further abduction to a non-Hague Convention country.

The moving party sought to re-open a previously dismissed motion by introducing fresh evidence of alleged mortgage fraud, and also brought an unscheduled disclosure motion.

The court dismissed the motion to re-open, finding the proposed evidence did not meet the Palmer test as it could have been discovered with due diligence and would not have changed the outcome.

The court declined to hear the unscheduled disclosure motion.

Costs of $5,500 were awarded to the responding party.

The court adjourned the issue of whether the moving party's counsel should be personally liable for costs under Rule 24(9) to allow counsel to obtain independent legal advice.

The respondent husband brought a motion to dismiss the applicant wife's family law application, arguing that a prior consent order dividing his pension constituted a full and final settlement of all claims.

The court found that there was no agreement for the wife to release her other claims, such as spousal support and equalization, and that enforcing such an alleged agreement would be unconscionable given the wife's limited means and the traditional nature of the marriage.

The court dismissed the husband's motion to dismiss, allowed the wife to continue with her claims, and granted the husband's request for a divorce order.

The court determined costs following a motion to change involving custody, child support, and section 7 expenses.

The father was awarded $2,500 for an earlier motion where he successfully sought the return of the child.

No costs were awarded for a consent order reached at a case conference.

On the main motion, the mother was the more successful party, having been granted sole custody and retroactive child support.

The court fixed the mother's costs at $11,300.

After offsetting the awards, the father was ordered to pay the mother a net amount of $8,800.

The defendants in a medical malpractice action brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim under the Family Law Act, arguing she did not meet the definition of a spouse.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was brought too close to the scheduled trial date contrary to prior instructions.

Applying the principles from Hryniak, the court held that granting partial summary judgment would risk duplicative proceedings and was not in the interest of justice, as the spousal status issue could be efficiently determined at trial.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion to change regarding child support and arrears.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, noting the applicant's offer was closer to the final order than the respondent's.

The court found the respondent's conduct unreasonable, as he had failed to disclose income for years and was previously found in contempt.

Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court awarded the applicant costs of $18,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion in a status review application regarding two children who had been placed with their maternal grandparents.

The Society sought a final custody order for the grandparents, a continuation of a restraining order prohibiting the parents from contacting the children, and an order denying parental access.

The parents opposed the motion, arguing that access and their involvement in monitoring the grandparents' care should be determined at trial.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the mother's ongoing conflictual behaviour and the parents' lack of insight as established by a recent parenting capacity assessment.

Summary judgment was granted, placing the children in the grandparents' custody and denying the parents access.

The applicant brought a motion to change a prior child support order based on a material increase in the respondent’s income.

The respondent argued that payment of the full guideline amount would cause undue hardship because he had a legal obligation to support three additional children from a subsequent relationship.

The court considered the undue hardship provisions under s. 10 of the Child Support Guidelines and balanced the competing household obligations.

While the court accepted that full guideline support would create undue hardship, it found an increase was still warranted.

The prior order was varied to require increased monthly child support plus a contribution toward extraordinary expenses.

The applicant father brought a motion regarding child support for his three children, including his adult stepdaughter who was attending university away from home and had become estranged from him after discovering his marital infidelity.

The mother sought interim child support, a contribution to university expenses, and orthodontic costs.

The court found that the stepdaughter remained a child of the marriage and her estrangement did not disentitle her to support.

The court imputed $5,000 in undeclared hockey refereeing income to the father, found the table amount inappropriate for a child living away for university, and ordered the father to pay a proportionate share of the university expenses after deducting the child's contribution.

The applicant mother brought a motion for financial disclosure from the respondent father dating back to 1995 in relation to a claim for retroactive child support.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to sever the issue of entitlement for the years 1995-2007, arguing that a trial should be held on entitlement before disclosure is ordered.

The court dismissed the cross-motion for severance, finding that financial disclosure is necessary to assess whether the respondent engaged in blameworthy conduct under the D.B.S. framework.

The court granted the applicant's motion for disclosure, ordering the respondent to produce financial information from 1995 onwards.