Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The applicant, Paul Lafortune, sought declarations and orders to enforce a 2017 agreement with the respondent, Tami Diebel, regarding the division and sale of jointly owned properties following their separation.

The court reviewed the parties' relationship history, the terms of the agreement, and the respondent's arguments against enforcement, including claims of duress and unfairness.

The court found no basis in contract or family law to set aside the agreement and granted the relief sought by the applicant, ordering the respondent to provide vacant possession of the property within 90 days.

The decision addresses cross-motions to vary interim spousal support and related security obligations following the applicant's retirement.

The court finds a material change in circumstances due to the applicant's retirement and health, reduces spousal support to $1 per month pending trial, and declines to increase life insurance security.

The respondent's motion for retroactive support is dismissed as already decided.

The court sets out a process for any further motion to transfer the proceeding and for trial scheduling.

The moving party, a lawyer who formerly represented the applicant in a family law proceeding, brought a motion for summary judgment to strike the co-respondents' amended answers against him.

The co-respondents had previously brought a civil action against the lawyer regarding the non-disbursement of proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned property, which was dismissed on the basis that the lawyer owed them no duty of care.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, finding that the claims in the amended answers were identical to those dismissed in the civil action and were therefore barred by the doctrines of res judicata and abuse of process.

During a family law trial involving decision-making responsibility and parenting time, the self-represented applicant mother testified about family violence, including sexual assault, perpetrated by the respondent father.

The court raised concerns about the applicant having to cross-examine the respondent and adjourned the matter to consider appointing amicus curiae to assist with the cross-examination, inviting submissions from the parties, the Attorney General for Ontario, and Legal Aid Ontario.

The applicant, Marion Breukelman, sought to consolidate two civil proceedings (a civil action and an employment action) into her ongoing family law application.

The court granted the motion for consolidation, finding that the proceedings shared common questions of fact and law, particularly regarding the beneficial ownership of shares in a family business (R. Avis Surveying Inc.).

The court emphasized that consolidation would promote judicial efficiency, save legal expenses for the parties, and, most importantly, avoid the risk of inconsistent judgments across the related proceedings.

Despite concerns raised by the respondent and other parties about inconvenience, the court determined that the balance of convenience favoured consolidation, noting that the Family Law Rules provide tools for efficient case management.

The applicant father sought primary care and sole decision-making for his 11-year-old daughter following the mother's death from brain cancer.

The maternal grandparents, with whom the child had primarily resided for most of her life, opposed this, seeking to maintain the status quo.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" principle under the Divorce Act, rejected the father's claim of a "right of joint custodial survivorship" and found that the child's need for stability and continuity favored remaining in the grandparents' primary care.

The court granted interim primary care and final decision-making to the grandparents, while establishing a parenting schedule for the father and ordering mediation.

The moving party sought to vary a 1999 divorce judgment that ordered him to pay $388,000 in spousal support, of which he had paid only $160,000 before defaulting in 2001.

He argued that the failure of his business, his health issues, and his new family constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court dismissed the motion to change the support amount, finding that the business failure was foreseeable and his health issues did not impact his earning capacity.

However, the court granted his request to strike a default provision in the judgment that doubled the outstanding support plus $50,000, finding it to be an unenforceable penalty clause.

The mother brought an urgent motion to determine the children's schooling for the 2020-2021 academic year during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The father sought to have the children continue with virtual learning, while the mother requested they attend a French-language school in person.

The court found no medical reason to keep the children home and determined that in-person learning at a public French-language school was in their best interests, given their academic needs, language proficiency, and the mother's logistical constraints.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking the immediate return of her three children after the respondent father refused to return them following a weekend visit, citing an incident involving the mother's partner.

The court reviewed the mother's materials as a triage judge during the COVID-19 court suspension.

The court found the custody and access issues to be potentially urgent and set a timetable for the father to file responding materials and for the Children's Aid Society to provide an update before a formal hearing.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion regarding parenting time during the COVID-19 court suspension.

The triage judge reviewed the father's materials and found that he had unilaterally retained the three-year-old child after a period of access due to frustration over timesharing disputes.

The court declined to hear the motion, noting strong disapproval of self-help in parenting disputes, and recommended the immediate return of the child to the respondent mother.

Supplementary reasons establishing the timeline and procedure for the parties to make written submissions on costs following the release of the main judgment.

In the first part of a bifurcated family law trial dealing with property issues, the court determined the treatment of the respondent's RRSP used under the Home Buyers Plan and a disputed pre-marriage loan.

The court held that the respondent was entitled to a date of marriage deduction for his $25,000 RRSP and had a date of separation asset of $21,668, subject to a notional tax rate of 25%.

The court also found, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent had an asset of $35,000 (US) owed to him on the date of marriage from a loan to his brother-in-law, rather than the $47,400 claimed.

The mother, father, and the maternal aunt and uncle (the McCormicks) brought competing motions regarding the residence of the three children.

The father, who shared joint custody with the McCormicks, sought permission to relocate with the children from London to Lindsay for employment.

The mother and the McCormicks opposed the move and sought to have the children placed in their care.

The court granted the father's motion to relocate, finding it in the children's best interests as it allowed the father to secure employment and remain the primary caregiver, subject to modifications in transportation and access schedules.

The motions by the mother and the McCormicks were dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to change a final order regarding child support and section 7 expenses for his three children.

Key issues included the applicant's income, whether an adult child (Ivana) remained a child of the marriage for support purposes while pursuing a second degree, and the calculation of support and arrears for another adult child (Jelena) and a minor child (Luka).

The court found no material change in circumstances to impute a higher income to the applicant beyond a conceded increase.

It ruled that support for Ivana ceased upon completion of her first degree, rejecting the respondent's claim for medical school expenses.

Support for Jelena was suspended for 2012 due to her employment but continued for 2013 despite part-time studies due to a mental health condition, payable directly to her after age 22 until age 23.

The court clarified the interpretation of section 7 expenses for post-secondary education and hockey, largely upholding the original consent order's framework.

Arrears were calculated based on these findings.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a motion where an ex parte order obtained by the applicant was set aside due to her failure to provide complete information to the court.

The court had replaced the ex parte order with an interim-interim order for joint custody and a rotating schedule.

The respondent, who was successful in having the ex parte order set aside, sought costs.

The court found the respondent to be the successful party and presumptively entitled to costs.

After considering factors such as the importance of the issues, the reasonableness of the parties' behaviour, the absence of settlement offers, and counsel's rates and time spent, the court adjusted the respondent's claimed costs.

The applicant's request to defer payment of costs was denied, consistent with the Family Law Rules.

The applicant was ordered to pay $4,000.00 in costs to the respondent.

The applicant father sought costs following a motion in which he successfully obtained increased interim access time with his child and an order requesting the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The respondent mother opposed the motion and offered a settlement that was less than the relief granted.

The court found the father was the successful party and awarded him costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $3,500.

A custody and access dispute concerning a child with developmental delays was tried following a period during which the father retained the child after the mother’s hospitalization arising from a mental health episode.

The court considered extensive evidence from educators, child protection workers, and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer regarding school attendance issues, alleged parental alienation, and the ability of each parent to meet the child’s special needs.

Numerous abuse allegations made by the father against the mother were investigated and found unsubstantiated.

Applying the best interests test under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court found the father had repeatedly failed to meet the child’s educational, medical, and developmental needs and had attempted to alienate the child from the mother.

The mother was found capable of providing a more stable and child‑focused environment.

The applicant sought non-time limited spousal support and a lump sum payment to compensate for her lost share of the respondent's pension following his bankruptcy.

The court found the applicant was entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds following a 15-year traditional marriage.

However, the court imputed a minimum wage income to the applicant, finding she was intentionally unemployed despite physical limitations.

The court ordered periodic spousal support of $2,800 per month indefinitely.

The claim for lump sum spousal support was dismissed because no equalization of net family property had ever occurred, making a lump sum award an improper redistribution of assets.

The parties brought cross-motions in a family law proceeding following a 25-year marriage.

The respondent sought to sever the divorce claim from corollary issues, which was dismissed as he failed to prove the applicant would not be disadvantaged regarding health benefits.

Due to ongoing disclosure disputes, the court ordered a structured process for both parties to exchange missing financial information.

The applicant's claim for retroactive spousal support was dismissed due to an insufficient evidentiary record.

However, the court found a prima facie entitlement to interim spousal support based on compensatory and non-compensatory factors, ordering the respondent to pay $2,587.50 per month.

The respondent was also ordered on consent to designate the applicant as a life insurance beneficiary.

The applicant sought to relocate the parties’ children from Bracebridge to Stittsville following the loss of her employment and the acceptance of new employment in Ottawa.

The court applied the relocation framework from Gordon v. Goertz and found that the change in employment and residence constituted a material change in circumstances.

In assessing the best interests of the children, the court considered the existing parenting arrangement, the children’s greater attachment to the primary caregiver, the views of the children, and the disruption associated with either permitting or denying the move.

The respondent raised allegations of parental alienation and improper motive, but the court rejected those claims and accepted that the relocation was driven primarily by employment circumstances.

The court concluded that the children’s best interests favoured relocation with the applicant while preserving meaningful parenting time with the respondent.