Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from dealing with estate assets and sought orders directing third parties to release hospital records, telephone records, and the defendant's will.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to strike the Statement of Claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and for being frivolous and an abuse of process.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a recognizable duty of care owed by the defendant, who was acting as attorney for personal care pursuant to a valid power of attorney.

The court struck the claim without leave to amend and dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding it was motivated by personal turmoil and collateral purposes rather than a viable legal claim.

This decision concerns a motion to change parenting arrangements and child support for a seven-year-old child with special needs.

The court found a material change in circumstances, including the child's autism diagnosis and a shift in primary residence to the father after the mother left for India.

The court awarded sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence to the father, with structured parenting time for the mother.

The court also varied travel and child support provisions, imputing income to the mother based on gifts and her earning capacity.

This decision arises from an uncontested family law trial following the striking of the respondent father’s pleadings for persistent non-compliance with disclosure and support obligations.

The court imputes income to the father, orders lump sum retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, grants an unequal division of net family property, and authorizes the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court declines to order the sale of corporate property not specifically pleaded.

The decision is notable for its detailed application of adverse inference, imputation of income, and the use of lump sum support to address enforcement concerns where the payor has absconded.

The court considered an application for summary judgment in a family law matter involving decision-making responsibility, parenting time, child support, and related relief.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making for the child, supervised parenting time for the respondent, and other orders.

The court granted summary judgment on several issues, including sole decision-making, primary residence, child support, and communication through a third party, but found genuine issues requiring trial on others, such as the change of the child’s surname, s. 7 expenses, and a restraining order.

The court set out the legal framework for summary judgment and restraining orders, and awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondent brought a motion to enforce draft Minutes of Settlement that were negotiated and finalized between counsel.

The applicant's counsel had sent the final draft to the respondent, who signed it, but the applicant subsequently refused to sign, citing a new psychological assessment of the child.

The court applied the objective test for a settlement and found that a meeting of the minds had occurred, the essential terms were agreed upon, and the agreement was not conditional.

The court granted the motion and ordered the Minutes of Settlement to be incorporated into a final order.

The applicants, who are the children and accountant of the respondent, brought an application for declarations that the respondent is incapable of managing property and personal care, and incapable of granting or revoking powers of attorney.

The respondent, an elderly man with significant real estate holdings, had executed powers of attorney in 2011 in favour of the applicants.

Following a stroke and cognitive decline, the applicants assumed management of his affairs.

Subsequently, the respondent married a new partner and executed new powers of attorney with the assistance of a friend.

The court reviewed competing capacity assessments and medical evidence, concluding that the respondent has been incapable of managing property and personal care since September 2017, and incapable of granting or revoking powers of attorney since November 2018.

The court affirmed the authority of the applicants under the 2011 powers of attorney.

Following a motion determining the child's habitual residence to be Nigeria, the successful respondent mother sought costs on a full recovery basis, including legal fees and living expenses incurred while remaining in Ontario.

The court found the applicant father's conduct unreasonable but not amounting to bad faith.

The court awarded the mother $30,000 in costs, noting the father had already paid $11,200 in interim support which covered a large portion of the mother's living expenses.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a purported settlement agreement regarding the buyout of the matrimonial home and spousal support, allegedly reached via email exchange of draft minutes following a settlement conference.

The respondent opposed and brought a cross-motion for partition and sale of the home.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the parties had a meeting of the minds and intended to be bound prior to signing formal minutes.

The cross-motion for partition and sale was also dismissed, as selling the home would prejudice the applicant's trial claim to purchase the respondent's interest.

The father brought an urgent motion to restrain the mother from relocating with their eight-year-old child from Toronto to Kemptville.

The mother brought a cross-motion to permit the relocation so the child could attend a specialized reading intervention program.

The court found that the child had significant reading challenges and that the mother's proposed educational plan constituted compelling circumstances to allow the move on an interim basis.

The father's motion was dismissed, and the mother's cross-motion was granted, permitting the relocation for the 2020-2021 school year pending a final determination at trial.

The father was awarded extended parenting time to compensate for the geographical distance.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to find the child in need of protection and to place her in extended Society care for the purpose of adoption.

The mother consented to the order, while the father opposed it.

The court found that the parents had a history of domestic violence and the father had not presented a viable plan of care.

Applying the test for summary judgment in child protection proceedings, the court concluded there was no genuine issue for trial, found the child in need of protection, and ordered her placed in extended care for adoption.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, seeking $1,700 per month.

The respondent, who was paying $400 per month, argued that the current amount should be maintained.

The parties had been married for 26 years and were in significant debt, having made a consumer proposal.

The court considered the parties' incomes, debts, and the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $950 per month, finding it reasonable and just pending trial.

The parties settled custody, access, and child support arrears.

The remaining issues were the quantum of ongoing child support and costs.

The applicant father sought a suspension of ongoing child support and enforcement of future arrears, arguing undue hardship under s. 10 of the Child Support Guidelines due to a stroke, depression, alcoholism, and a claw-back of disability payments.

The respondent mother resisted this application.

The court found that the father had demonstrated "exceptional and unusual" circumstances constituting undue hardship.

Consequently, the payment of the table amount of child support and the enforcement of any future arrears were suspended until the father's financial circumstances improved, with only the agreed-upon arrears payment continuing.

No costs were awarded as both parties achieved partial success.

Following a prior trial decision determining support obligations, the court invited the parties to make limited submissions addressing potential calculation errors in the support calculations.

The applicant instead filed an affidavit containing new documentation and income calculations that had not been part of the trial record.

The court held that the submissions process was restricted to identifying mathematical errors and did not permit the introduction of new evidence.

As the applicant had previously been given opportunities to present documentation during the trial, the court refused to consider the new materials.

The original support calculations therefore remained unchanged.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's Answer for failing to comply with a previous court order requiring financial disclosure, payment of costs, and spousal support.

The respondent provided the disclosure and paid the costs shortly before the motion hearing.

The court declined to strike the pleadings, noting it is a remedy of last resort.

However, because the respondent resides outside Ontario and was significantly late in his compliance, the court ordered him to register a $28,000 security interest against his property and pay $5,000 for interim disbursements to allow the applicant's expert to complete a business valuation.

The moving party (father) brought a motion to change a 1999 child support order, seeking to terminate support for his adult daughter on the basis that she had completed her initial post-secondary program and was no longer eligible.

The responding party (mother) opposed the termination and sought an increase in support and contributions to the daughter's second post-secondary program.

The court found that the daughter's eligibility for support temporarily ceased during a hiatus between programs but revived upon her enrolment in a bridging program.

The court applied the standard Guidelines approach, ordering the moving party to pay an increased Table amount based on his updated income and to contribute $2,500 annually towards the daughter's section 7 post-secondary expenses until her expected graduation.

In a child protection proceeding, the society sought continuation of an interim order placing three children in its temporary care and custody following apprehension.

The motion focused on the mental health condition of one parent, including psychiatric diagnoses, medication compliance concerns, and recent warnings from the treating psychiatrist indicating potential risk if the children were returned home.

The court emphasized the absence of the ordered family court clinic assessment and the uncertainty surrounding the parent's mental health stability.

Given recent concerns about medication non‑compliance and potential substance use, the court concluded that the risk to the children had not been adequately resolved.

The interim order continuing society care was granted pending the forthcoming assessment.

The applicant sought enforcement in Ontario of a commission issued by a New Jersey court requiring a non‑party witness to produce documents and attend for a deposition relating to corporate farm assets relevant to U.S. divorce proceedings.

The respondents resisted on the basis that the request was intrusive, unnecessary, and contrary to privacy interests.

Applying the criteria for enforcing foreign commissions, including relevance, necessity, specificity, and comity, the court held that most of the requested documentary production and questioning should be enforced.

However, several areas of questioning were refused or restricted as speculative or overly intrusive.

Enforcement was conditioned on confidentiality undertakings equivalent to Ontario’s deemed undertaking rule and limits were imposed on the scope, location, and timing of the deposition.

Costs decision following a motion in a family law proceeding concerning property claims, disclosure, and child support.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs alleging the applicant’s bankruptcy was a tactical attempt to defeat property claims, but the court found insufficient evidence to reach that conclusion.

The court noted that the respondent achieved the vast majority of the relief sought on the motion and that the motion was necessary to obtain reasonable disclosure and child support.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs against the applicant and additional costs against added respondents who failed to participate in the motion.

The costs were ordered as an incident of child support and enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.

During a child protection trial under the Child and Family Services Act, the society brought a mid‑trial motion seeking to admit documents from another society’s file relating to a prior protection proceeding involving a different child of the respondent.

The court considered whether the documents qualified as business records under s. 35 of the Ontario Evidence Act.

Documents containing summaries of anonymous allegations and an agreed statement of facts from the earlier proceeding were excluded because they contained prejudicial hearsay and lacked reliability.

However, assessment and service plan documents prepared by a caseworker in the ordinary course of child protection work were admitted as business records.

The excluded materials could still be used for cross‑examination of the respondent.

The moving party sought to vary a prior order requiring payment of child and spousal support, arguing a material change in circumstances due to loss of employment, reduced income, depression, and loss of a driver’s licence.

The court held that the moving party failed to establish a significant and sustained change in circumstances or demonstrate that his reduced income reflected his true earning capacity.

The medical evidence relied upon was inadequate to establish unemployability and did not meet the standards for expert opinion evidence.

The court maintained the previously imputed income under s. 19(1) of the Child Support Guidelines and declined to vary the support order or cancel arrears.

The motion to vary was dismissed, while the Ministry’s assignment of support arrears relating to social assistance payments was confirmed.