Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The parties, parents to an eight-year-old boy, separated in 2022 following an incident of family violence.

The father sought increased parenting time and a corresponding reduction in child support, while the mother sought retroactive child support and proportionate sharing of various extracurricular activities as section 7 expenses.

The court found that increasing the father's parenting time was not in the child's best interests given the child's distress from the parents' conflict and need for stability.

The court ordered the father to pay child support arrears and determined which extracurricular activities qualified as extraordinary expenses to be shared proportionately.

The applicant brought a motion for disclosure and a preservation order in a family law proceeding.

She sought original promissory notes for ink testing, virtual tracing of electronic signatures, proof of interest payments, and tracing of funds related to the respondent's withdrawals from a joint HELOC.

The court adjourned the request for original notes on consent, and dismissed the remaining disclosure requests, finding the respondent had provided answers and the issues were better suited for trial.

The request for a preservation order was dismissed without prejudice as it was outside the scope of the leave granted for the motion and lacked urgency.

The applicant father brought a motion to increase his parenting time to a 2/2/3 schedule and to enroll the children in a school and daycare near his home.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to maintain primary residence, add alternating Sunday overnights to the father's schedule, and enroll the children in a school and daycare near her home.

The court found no compelling reason to vary the interim schedule to a 2/2/3 arrangement but agreed to add the Sunday overnights to reduce conflict during exchanges.

The court also ordered the children to attend the school and daycare proposed by the mother, finding it in their best interests to maintain stability and routine.

Following a ruling on cross-motions where the applicant was ordered to pay substantial indemnity costs, the court received written submissions on quantum.

The respondent sought $22,326.46, while the applicant argued for no costs or $2,500.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, the court fixed costs at $15,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes, payable within 30 days.

Following a motion where the applicant was permitted to amend the application, the respondent was unsuccessful on disclosure, and neither party obtained an advance of funds, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought $2,073.06 and the respondent sought $17,500.00.

Considering the mixed success and the parties' offers, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent costs of $3,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

The Children's Aid Society appealed a temporary care order returning a child to the mother and sought a stay of that order pending appeal.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay, focusing on whether there was a serious issue to be tried.

The court found the Society failed to establish a serious issue, concluding that the motion judge's finding of speculative risk was entitled to deference and that the child could be adequately protected by a supervision order.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant sought costs following a motion for interim spousal and child support and interim disbursements.

Although the respondent was technically successful on the motion, the court found that the respondent's conduct, including withholding critical information about an income analysis and making an unreasonable offer to settle, tempered the presumption of costs in his favour.

The court awarded costs of $3,000 to the applicant.

The parties separated after a marriage that began in 2004.

At trial, the sole issue was the equalization of net family properties under section 5 of the Family Law Act.

The court determined the valuation date to be February 9, 2014, when the applicant returned from a trip to find the respondent had left their apartment.

After assessing the credibility of the parties and valuing their respective assets and debts, the court calculated the applicant's net family property at zero and the respondent's at $6,886.00.

The court rejected the applicant's argument that an equal division would be unconscionable under section 5(6) and ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $3,443.00.

The applicant father sought leave to bring an interlocutory motion for production of CAS records after a final order had been issued in a high-conflict custody case.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no underlying proceeding to ground it.

In a related garnishment hearing, the father had garnished the mother's bank account to collect costs.

The mother argued this effectively garnished child support and Canada Child Benefit funds.

The court set aside the garnishment to the extent of those funds, finding it inequitable to allow garnishment of monies meant for the child's benefit.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding spousal support, child support, and section 7 expenses.

He argued the trial judge erred by imputing income based on his rental income without deducting the expenses incurred to earn that income, and by failing to apply the shared custody provisions of the Child Support Guidelines.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge's failure to address the rental expenses contained in the appellant's tax returns constituted a significant misapprehension of evidence and an error in principle.

The court ordered a new trial to determine the appellant's income, spousal support, child support, and section 7 expenses.

The respondent was successful at trial after the applicant reneged on a settlement agreement and misled the court by denying its existence.

The court permanently stayed $8,200 in prior costs awards made against the respondent, finding it would be an undeserved windfall for the applicant.

The court awarded the self-represented respondent $7,500 in substantial indemnity costs for the trial, finding the applicant's conduct constituted bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

The applicants (father and paternal grandparents) brought a motion for interim custody and access for two children.

The respondent (mother) opposed.

The court addressed conflicting evidence regarding parental fitness, the mother's mental health, and the role of the grandparents as de facto caregivers.

Emphasizing the children's best interests, the court awarded interim joint custody to the mother and grandparents, establishing a detailed rotating parenting schedule with conditions on the mother's residence and supervision.

The father was granted reasonable access during the grandparents' parenting time.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion where Rajeev Singh Chandel was successful in obtaining an order for payment out of funds held in trust.

Alka Singh failed to comply with court directions regarding the submission of costs materials, including page limits and deadlines, and her submissions were significantly overdue and over-length.

The court found Mr. Chandel was entitled to costs under rule 24(1) and rejected Ms. Singh's arguments of misconduct, indigence, or that Mr. Chandel's success was a "technicality." The court awarded Mr. Chandel partial indemnity costs, recognizing the additional work necessitated by Ms. Singh's non-compliance with procedural directions, specifically her excessive motion record.

In a high‑income family law proceeding, the applicant sought temporary child and spousal support following separation.

The respondent argued his income had fallen significantly due to banking restrictions and business challenges and urged the court to base support on a projected income of approximately $1.6 million rather than his prior line 150 income exceeding $5 million.

The court held that, on an interim motion without oral evidence or credibility findings, the respondent had not established that his proposed lower income fairly reflected the money available for support under the Child Support Guidelines.

The court therefore relied on the respondent’s 2014 line 150 income to calculate temporary support.

Temporary child support and spousal support were ordered accordingly.

Following an earlier endorsement deciding a family law motion, the court addressed costs.

The successful party sought full recovery costs of $20,800, while the opposing party argued that no costs should be awarded or that they should be reduced.

The court dismissed a request for leave to file reply submissions on costs and held that settlement discussions during mediation were protected by privilege and should not be referenced.

Finding that the unsuccessful party had behaved unreasonably in the underlying proceedings, the court ordered costs above partial indemnity but reduced the requested amount as disproportionate.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded, payable by set-off against any amounts owing or otherwise at final judgment or settlement.

In a family law proceeding between spouses, the applicant brought a motion seeking removal of the respondent’s solicitor of record and related relief after the respondent obtained and filed an email between the applicant and her counsel.

The email was a solicitor-client communication that had been accessed through the applicant’s personal email account.

The court considered whether the respondent’s counsel acted improperly by reviewing the email and including it in an affidavit.

Applying authorities concerning inadvertent disclosure of privileged communications, the court accepted counsel’s explanation that she questioned her client about the source of the email, believed it had been obtained from a business account, and concluded it did not contain litigation strategy.

The court found no misconduct warranting removal or sanctions against counsel.

In an uncontested family trial following separation and allegations of long‑standing domestic abuse, the court determined custody, support, property division, and related relief.

The applicant was granted final custody with supervised access to the respondent and a continuing restraining order.

The court valued the matrimonial home at $560,000, equalized the parties’ net family property, and ordered a vesting of title in the applicant subject to payments to the respondent.

The court imputed income to the respondent due to intentional unemployment and awarded lump sum child support to secure future support obligations.

Additional relief included exclusive possession of the home, a vesting order, and costs.

The respondent husband brought a motion to reduce spousal support following his retirement and significant reduction in employment income.

The court considered the parties’ financial circumstances, including the husband’s pension income, the earlier equalization of pension benefits, and the recipient spouse’s medical inability to work.

Relying on the principles articulated in Boston v. Boston, the court held that while the payor was entitled to some reduction in support after retirement, the recipient’s ongoing financial needs and lack of income remained significant.

Balancing these considerations, the court reduced the spousal support payable from $2400 per month to $1350 per month commencing January 1, 2014.

Following trial reasons granting judgment to the plaintiffs and dismissing a motion brought by a defendant, the court addressed entitlement and quantum of costs.

Applying rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court found the successful parties presumptively entitled to costs.

The court concluded that the primary defendant had acted in bad faith through conduct including unfounded allegations of fraud and conspiracy, misleading the court in a Mareva injunction motion, and refusing to comply with a memorandum of understanding.

Substantial indemnity costs were therefore warranted.

The defendants were ordered jointly and severally to pay the plaintiffs and intervenors full recovery amounts for fees and disbursements.

The parties, who separated in 1991 after a traditional marriage, both brought motions to change a 1993 spousal support order.

The moving party sought to terminate his $500 monthly spousal support obligation, citing his retirement, health issues, and the responding party's improved financial position.

The responding party brought a cross-motion seeking an increase in support due to inflation and ongoing economic disadvantage.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that neither party had met the threshold burden of establishing a material change in circumstances that would justify varying the existing order.