Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The court considered an urgent motion regarding the interim primary residence of a 12-year-old child, M, following allegations of abuse and emotional harm.

After reviewing evidence from the Children’s Aid Society, school officials, and a Voice of the Child report, the court found it in M’s best interests to reside primarily with the respondent, Kory Guenette, in Verner, Ontario.

The decision details the history of the parties’ relationship, the child’s expressed wishes, and the relevant legal framework for determining best interests in parenting disputes.

The decision addresses a motion by the applicant father to amend his child’s birth certificate to include his name as a parent and to change the child’s surname to a hyphenated form reflecting both parents.

The court reviews the relevant legislative framework and the best interests of the child, ultimately exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.

The court finds that the name change honours both parents, reflects the child’s biracial identity, and is already in use in various contexts.

The decision also discusses the mother’s unilateral naming of the child and the importance of both parents being recognized.

The court considered a motion for summary judgment by Payam Bozorgi, who was added as a party to Shabnam Shokoufimoghiman’s family law application against her former spouse, Amir Ebrahim Bozorgi.

Payam sought to dismiss the claims against him and to be removed as a party.

The court found there was no genuine issue for trial regarding Shabnam’s trust claims against Payam, but there was a genuine issue for trial on the fraudulent conveyance claim.

Payam’s request to be removed as a party was denied, and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

This decision addresses an urgent parenting motion regarding a 10-year-old child, PRW.

The father, James Rufus Walker, withheld the child from the mother, Alecia Rachelle Innes, after a scheduled visit, claiming longstanding concerns about the child's welfare.

The court found that the father’s actions did not meet the threshold of urgency required to justify unilateral action and disruption of the status quo.

The court ordered the immediate return of the child to the mother and emphasized the importance of following court orders, discouraging self-help remedies, and considering the best interests of the child above all.

The Respondent brought a motion to vary an interim order for supervised parenting time, seeking unsupervised access to the child.

The Applicant opposed the motion.

The court reviewed the history, including the Respondent's prior absconding with the child and ongoing conflictual behavior during supervised visits, and the Applicant's hypervigilance.

The court declined to vary the supervised access order, finding it was in the child's best interests to maintain stability and avoid parental conflict.

The court also requested the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer to assist in determining the child's best interests and managing parental conflict.

The children's aid society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of three children, seeking to place them with their great grandparents.

The parents opposed the placement, raising concerns about violence, drug use, and criminal activity in the proposed home.

The court found the society's evidence regarding the proposed placement to be incomplete and lacking transparency.

The court dismissed the society's motion to place the children with the great grandparents and ordered that the children remain in the temporary care and custody of the society.

The court also ruled that the society does not require a court order to use police occurrence reports already provided to it pursuant to the duty to report.

The applicant father brought an interim motion seeking sole decision-making authority to have the parties' two children vaccinated against Covid-19.

The respondent mother opposed the vaccination, citing concerns about side effects.

The parties had a 2018 Separation Agreement providing for joint decision-making.

The court declined to take judicial notice that the children's weight made them particularly vulnerable to Covid-19 and found the mother's concerns were reasonably held.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that there was no compelling reason to change the joint decision-making arrangement on a temporary basis before a full trial.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, retroactive support, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent opposed spousal support, relying on a marriage contract that waived it.

The court found a serious triable issue regarding whether the marriage contract complied with the objectives of the Divorce Act, allowing an interim spousal support award of $25,500 per month and child support of $9,918 per month.

The court deferred the issue of retroactive support to trial but granted the applicant's request to order the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The paternal grandmother brought a motion for a temporary order for alternate weekend access and specified holiday time with her four-year-old granddaughter, who was placed in the custody of the maternal grandmother.

The maternal grandmother opposed a formal order, preferring to manage access at her discretion due to concerns about the paternal grandmother's son and grandson.

The court determined that section 104 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act governed the motion and found that a formal access order was in the child's best interests to manage the tension between the grandmothers.

The court granted alternate weekend access with conditions prohibiting the biological father's presence during visits.

The applicant and respondent, unmarried cohabitants for 12 years, separated and sought division of accumulated real estate.

The applicant claimed a 50% interest in properties registered to the respondent based on unjust enrichment and joint family venture.

The court found the applicant made a modest financial contribution to the family home and contributed to the maintenance of investment properties and the family home, allowing the respondent to earn substantial income.

The court concluded the criteria for unjust enrichment and joint family venture were met and awarded the applicant a 35% interest in the family home and other properties, less the equity in a condominium owned by the applicant.

The plaintiff, a creditor of the defendant's bankrupt former spouse, brought a motion to set aside the bankrupt's release of his interest in the matrimonial home.

The bankrupt had released his interest in the home to the defendant in a separation agreement shortly before declaring bankruptcy.

The court held that the bankrupt's right to claim possession of the matrimonial home was personal in nature and not an asset available for distribution to creditors under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The motion was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of a motion to remove the respondent's counsel in a family law proceeding, the respondent sought costs of $88,729.26 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The moving parties argued the quantum was unreasonable and sought to have costs fixed at $30,000 payable in the cause.

The court found the respondent's counsel's hours and rates to be somewhat excessive compared to the moving parties' counsel, but acknowledged the importance of the motion.

The court fixed costs at $50,000, payable forthwith, rejecting the moving parties' argument that payment should be deferred until the equalization payment was determined.

The applicant mother and respondent father both sought sole custody of their 13-year-old son.

The child had been living primarily with the father and paternal grandparents since separation.

A Section 30 assessment recommended shared parenting or sole custody to the mother if the father did not move away from his parents, but the court found the assessors favoured the mother.

Following a judicial interview where the child expressed a strong preference to live with his father and fear of his mother, and considering the father's ability to provide a stable environment, the court awarded sole custody to the father.

The mother was granted access every other weekend, with overnight visits conditional on OCL approval of sleeping arrangements, and both parties were ordered to attend counselling.

Following a trial regarding child support, the court considered written submissions on costs.

The applicant sought up to $58,050 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court noted that success was divided, both parties were responsible for an unacceptable 14-year delay, and the respondent failed to provide full financial disclosure.

Considering proportionality and the parties' unreasonable positions, the court awarded the applicant $12,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for Crown wardship for three children.

The mother and the two fathers of the children opposed the application, seeking to have the children returned to their care.

The court found that the children were in need of protection due to the parents' significant mental health issues, substance abuse, and inability to provide a stable environment.

The mother was physically disabled and insisted on caring for one of the fathers, who suffered from severe mental illness and required constant supervision.

The other father had a history of substance abuse and an unstable lifestyle.

The court concluded that the parents' plans of care were unworkable and that it was in the best interests of the children to be made Crown wards for the purpose of adoption, with some transitional access and potential openness agreements.

Following a four‑day family law trial addressing property division and spousal support, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Although the applicant obtained significant retroactive support and equalization relief, success at trial was mixed, with several issues resolved in the respondent’s favour, including income findings and an inheritance exclusion claim.

The court considered the parties’ settlement offers under rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules and the general costs factors under rule 24.

Substantial indemnity costs were found inappropriate due to mixed success and reasonable litigation conduct by both parties.

The court reduced the applicant’s claimed partial indemnity costs and ordered the respondent to pay a fixed amount.

The mother brought a motion seeking interim sole custody and interim spousal support following the parties’ separation after a long-term relationship and marriage.

The father opposed and sought the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The court held that the existing shared parenting arrangement constituted the status quo and that interim changes should only occur where there is clear evidence of danger or a compelling reason.

Finding no evidence that the children were at risk or that their needs were not being met, the court declined to disturb the shared parenting schedule and instead referred the matter to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer under s. 112 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The request for interim spousal support was also declined pending further financial disclosure.

This costs endorsement followed a prior family law ruling concerning support issues.

Although the underlying motion resulted in mixed success, the court found the respondent was largely successful on the principal issue relating to income determination for support purposes.

The court held that the applicant should reasonably have accepted the respondent’s offer to settle, which would have provided greater overall financial benefit and avoided further litigation costs.

Considering the Family Law Rules and the parties’ financial circumstances, the court exercised its discretion to award costs approaching substantial indemnity but reduced the amount because the respondent was not wholly successful.

Costs of $21,893.84, including partial reimbursement of an expert report, were ordered payable within 30 days.

Following a proceeding between former spouses, the successful party sought costs.

The court confirmed that the successful applicant was entitled to costs against the respondent.

Rather than fixing the amount, the court directed that the quantum be determined by an Assessment Officer.

The decision addresses entitlement to costs only.

At a case conference in a family law proceeding, the parties sought directions relating to custody, support, and property issues following marital breakdown.

The matter involved disputes over custody of the child of the marriage, the status of a stepchild as a child of the marriage, spousal support, and the proposed sale of the matrimonial home.

The court addressed significant delay in service of the application and considered the high-conflict environment between the parties while they continued to reside in the same residence.

Orders were made for disclosure, a clinical assessment by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, screening for alcohol dependency, and steps to list and sell the matrimonial home.

The matter was adjourned to a settlement/trial management conference with interim procedural directions.