Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

This decision addresses the division of property, equalization, and post-separation adjustments following the breakdown of marriage between Oludayo Olowookere and Arthur Temitope Olowookere.

The court determined the date of separation, assessed the credibility and sufficiency of evidence regarding alleged family loans, and calculated equalization and post-separation adjustments.

The court found insufficient evidence to support the existence of the claimed loans and provided detailed reasons for the equalization and adjustment calculations, ultimately ordering specific payments and dismissing the occupation rent claim.

The court considered a motion to change a final order regarding child support, including retroactive and ongoing support, and section 7 expenses.

The court found the respondent had failed to comply with disclosure obligations and imputed an income of $97,240 to him, ordering support and arrears accordingly.

The court also fixed section 7 arrears and awarded costs to the applicant, emphasizing the respondent’s chronic non-compliance and the need to discourage such conduct.

The court considered competing motions regarding the matrimonial home: the respondent sought exclusive possession and a transfer of the home into his name, while the applicant sought partition and sale under the Partition Act.

The court found that both motions were, in substance, for final relief and analyzed them accordingly.

The court held that the respondent had not established grounds for exclusive possession or for a transfer of the home, and that the applicant was entitled to an order for sale, but not exclusive control of the sale process.

Directions were given for the sale and for the holding of proceeds in trust.

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

This decision concerns a family law trial between Juana Gonzalez (the applicant, "Mother") and Cesar Astorga Bello (the respondent, "Father") regarding a restraining order, child and spousal support, and related financial issues.

The court found a history of family violence and coercive control by the Father, and granted a final restraining order in favour of the Mother.

The court imputed a modest income to the Father based on regular gifts received, found no entitlement to spousal support, and determined that the Father's income was too low to require child support payments.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

The court addresses a high-conflict family law dispute between former spouses regarding the division of proceeds from the sale of their matrimonial home, equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, and costs.

The respondent repeatedly failed to comply with disclosure obligations and court orders, resulting in significant delays and additional costs for the applicant.

The court ultimately orders that neither party owes the other an equalization payment, dismisses the applicant's claim for an unequal division of property, but grants her reimbursement for post-separation expenses, writs, and costs, all payable from the respondent's share of the sale proceeds.

Le jugement porte sur la nullité du mariage entre Joseph Nzambayulu Mboma et Marie Mbwamuyolo, ainsi que sur la date de leur séparation.

Le tribunal conclut que le requérant était déjà marié à Bolele Bakopo (aussi connue sous le nom de Bolele Nzamba) au moment de son mariage avec la défenderesse, et que ce mariage antérieur n’a jamais été dissous.

Par conséquent, le mariage entre les parties est déclaré nul ab initio.

La date de la séparation des parties est fixée au 1er avril 2018, sur la base de la prépondérance des probabilités et de l’évaluation de la crédibilité des témoins et des preuves documentaires.

This decision concerns an interjurisdictional support variation application under the Divorce Act.

The applicant, James Longmire, sought to terminate his Ontario child support order and rescind arrears, arguing that his daughter K.S. had been living with him in Nova Scotia since 2019.

The court found that K.S. ceased to be a dependent child as of April 19, 2023, and terminated James’s child support obligation from that date.

However, the court dismissed James’s request to rescind arrears, finding insufficient evidence of hardship and that the legal framework for rescission was not met.

The decision concerns a motion by Cornel Brenninkmeyer to vary a temporary consent order regarding uncharacterized support payments to Susan (Sam) Makepeace.

The court considered whether there had been a material change in circumstances, hardship, urgency, and whether the moving party came to court with clean hands.

The court found a material change in circumstances and ordered a reduction in support payments, but did not find clear hardship.

The order allows for further reduction if the trial is further delayed.

This decision resolves parenting, decision-making, and child support issues for the parties’ 14-year-old daughter, C.M., following a lengthy family law proceeding.

The court orders a week-about shared parenting arrangement, joint decision-making with tie-breaker authority in specific domains, and imputes income to the applicant for child support purposes.

The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the best interests of the child, the legislative framework under the Divorce Act, and the application of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

This costs endorsement addresses entitlement and quantum of costs following a family law dispute regarding a change of school for the parties' child and a withdrawn claim for an interest in the proceeds of sale of a home.

The court apportions costs based on success on the various issues, the reasonableness of the parties' conduct, and the use of withdrawn claims as litigation leverage.

The result is a net costs award of $10,000 payable from the Applicant to the Respondent.

The court fixes costs following an undefended trial in a family law matter where the respondent repeatedly ignored court orders and failed to participate in the proceedings.

The applicant sought full recovery of costs due to the respondent's bad faith conduct.

The court found that the respondent's actions—deliberately ignoring orders and withholding parenting time to leverage financial issues—constituted bad faith.

Costs were fixed at $45,000, to be paid from the respondent’s share of the matrimonial home.

The decision addresses a motion by the applicant, Ms. Hill-Reyes, to have the added respondent, Ms. Pena, declared in default for failing to serve and file an Answer in a high-conflict family law proceeding involving custody and adoption issues.

The court reviews the procedural history, the barriers faced by the self-represented respondent living abroad, and the repeated opportunities given to participate.

Ultimately, the court finds Ms. Pena in default and imposes the consequences set out in subrule 1(8.4) of the Family Law Rules, barring her from further participation except as a witness.

The court considered costs following a full settlement in a family law case involving decision-making, parenting time, and child support.

The applicant sought full recovery costs, arguing the final order was nearly identical to her earlier offer to settle and that the respondent acted unreasonably by not responding.

The court found the respondent had, in fact, responded with a detailed offer and that both parties had reasonable positions, with success divided on various issues.

The court determined that full indemnity costs were not warranted, and awarded the applicant $18,000 in costs, finding this amount fair and proportionate given the circumstances and the divided success.

This decision addresses interim parenting time and school attendance for two children in a high-conflict family law matter.

The court maintains a week on/week off shared parenting schedule, with the caveat that if the mother fails to ensure the children’s school attendance, the father will have primary care during the school week.

The court declines to order a change of school or police enforcement at this stage, and orders the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) to ascertain the children’s views and preferences.

This uncontested trial endorsement addresses property and spousal support claims following the separation of Maria Teresa Del Grosso and Peter (Pietro) Del Grosso after 35 years of marriage.

The court identifies evidentiary deficiencies regarding the applicant’s claims for equalization of net family property and reimbursement of interest payments on joint lines of credit, as well as the quantum of spousal support.

The trial is adjourned pending further affidavit evidence.

This endorsement addresses outstanding issues between Katherine Britton and Nicholas Leigh following the breakdown of their relationship, including parenting matters for their child, Eleanor, and division of property.

The parties participated in a Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) hearing, resolved several issues, and set out procedures for travel, childcare, and communication.

Remaining property issues are to be discussed at a continuation of the JDR.

The applicant, Daniel Adam Wojick, sought a temporary order for parenting time and support regarding the parties' two children.

The court reviewed the evidence of both parties, the proposed parenting schedules, and the best interests of the children, ultimately adopting a transition plan leading to a 50/50 shared parenting arrangement.

The decision also set out temporary child support obligations for both parties, based on their respective incomes and the evolving parenting schedule.

The court considered a motion by the respondent, Irene Slegers, to disqualify Lerners LLP from acting for the applicant, Hans Jonckheere, due to alleged conflicts of interest.

The issues included whether Slegers was ever a client of Lerners, whether confidential information was shared, and whether any such information was relevant to the current litigation.

The court found that Slegers was never a client of Lerners, that any information she shared was unsolicited and not protected by solicitor-client privilege, and that there was no conflict of interest.

The motion to remove Lerners LLP was dismissed.

This decision addresses a motion by Mr. Diab for leave to issue a writ of possession against Ms. Poka to enforce prior court orders requiring her to vacate the matrimonial home.

The court reviews the history of orders regarding the sale and possession of the home, the parties' compliance, and the need for further orders to ensure the closing of the sale.

The court finds Ms. Poka is not currently in breach of the sale and vacate orders but makes further orders to ensure compliance and the successful closing of the sale, including surrender of keys, removal of belongings, and financial disclosure.

This decision concerns a high-conflict parenting dispute between Carla Patricia Ferreira Da Silva and Ramon Arturo Gomez Quevedo regarding their three-year-old son, Rafael.

The court addresses the impact of the father's changed work schedule on the existing equal parenting arrangement and the mother's request to reduce the father's time and obtain sole decision-making.

The court emphasizes the importance of the status quo, the best interests of the child, and the need for flexibility and cooperation between parents.

A temporary order is made maintaining equal parenting time, with adjustments to accommodate the father's new employment, and joint decision-making is preserved.