Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The appellant, Eric Collins, appealed an interim order from the Ontario Court of Justice that imputed income to him for child support purposes and ordered him to pay child support and arrears.

The appeal also included a motion to introduce fresh evidence and allegations of judicial bias.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no clear error in the lower court's imputation of income, no evidence of bias, and that the proposed fresh evidence was irrelevant.

The decision reiterated the high standard for appellate interference with interim orders and the deferential standard of review.

The Third Party, GPN, brought a motion to dismiss or stay a Third Party Claim by the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton (CCAS) or, alternatively, to permit her to continue as litigation guardian for the minor Plaintiff, JTB.

The CCAS brought a cross-motion to dismiss GPN's motion and remove her as litigation guardian, appointing the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).

The court dismissed GPN's motion, finding the Third Party Claim was not frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and that it pleaded a reasonable cause of action for contribution and indemnity.

The court granted the CCAS's motion to remove GPN as litigation guardian due to a conflict of interest, but adjourned the decision on appointing the OCL.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion for contempt regarding parenting time, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought $13,327 on a full indemnity basis, while the respondent proposed $7,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality under the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant $10,000 in costs, noting her success and the respondent's misguided contempt motion.

The respondent father, sole owner of the matrimonial home, brought a motion under s. 23 of the Family Law Act to dispense with the applicant mother's consent to sell the property.

The mother had enjoyed de facto exclusive possession for seven years while the father paid all carrying costs, resulting in severe financial hardship for him.

The court harmonized the legal standards for selling a matrimonial home under the Family Law Act and the Partition Act, holding that the test for a solely owned home should be the same as for a jointly owned home: whether the party proposing the sale is acting maliciously, vexatiously, or oppressively.

Finding no such conduct by the father, the court granted the motion, dispensed with the mother's consent, and ordered exclusive possession to the father to prepare the home for sale.

The respondent brought a motion to suspend his interim spousal support obligations, claiming a material change in circumstances due to his retirement and a significant reduction in income.

The applicant opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion for an increase in support and an advance from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found the respondent's financial disclosure lacking credibility and dismissed his motion to suspend support.

The court ordered that both parties receive $100,000 from the net proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home.

The Applicant sought to strike the Respondent's pleadings and vest title in two Ontario properties due to the Respondent's persistent non-compliance with numerous court orders regarding financial disclosure, support payments, and asset preservation.

The Respondent had failed to provide full disclosure of his overseas business interests and had accumulated significant arrears.

The court granted the vesting order to protect the matrimonial home from foreclosure and conditionally struck the Respondent's pleadings, allowing for limited participation on parenting issues if financial compliance was not met within 90 days.

The Applicant mother and Respondent father each brought motions seeking various relief concerning custody, access, and support for their two young children.

A key preliminary issue was the admissibility of an expert report from the mother's psychotherapist, which the court found inadmissible due to lack of expertise and objectivity.

The court determined it was in the children's best interests for their primary residence to remain with the mother, but rejected the mother's request for supervised access, ordering unsupervised access for the father with escalating parenting time.

Interim child and spousal support payments were ordered, and the support motion was adjourned for further evidence.

This decision addresses the terms of a father's access to his two young children following separation, with a separate decision to follow on property and equalization issues.

The court considered two OCL reports, which highlighted parental rigidity and the need for a gradual increase in the father's access, coupled with specific safety measures at his home.

The court established a detailed, staged access schedule for the father, gradually increasing overnight access for both children, and imposed conditions on the father regarding home safety (gating wood stoves, car seat inspection, proper sleeping arrangements) and communication.

The court criticized the mother for unduly limiting access and encouraging a child's dependency, and the father for his stubbornness in addressing safety recommendations.

The Children's Aid Society brought a status review application regarding a 7-year-old child who had been residing with her paternal grandmother and step-grandfather (the kin) for over five years.

The mother sought unsupervised access or custody, but a parenting capacity assessment and past access attempts indicated unsupervised access was detrimental to the child.

The court found that the child was no longer in need of protection while in the care of the kin.

The court ordered that the child be placed in the legal custody of the kin under the Children's Law Reform Act, with the mother granted supervised access and telephone contact at the discretion of the kin.

Following the dismissal of the father's motion regarding his daughter's withdrawal from parental control, the daughter and mother sought costs.

The court found that while the father did not act in bad faith, he acted unreasonably by omitting relevant evidence, relying on inadmissible letters, using accusatory language, and failing to respond to offers to settle.

The daughter was awarded full indemnity costs of $6,063.52.

The mother's claim for costs was dismissed as her participation was not necessary.

The mother brought motions for contempt against the father for failing to facilitate supervised access as ordered, and for joint custody with increased access.

The father cross-moved to vary the access order, citing concerns over the mother's past drug addiction and the child's anxiety.

The court found the father in contempt for deliberately disobeying the clear terms of the access order, but suspended any penalty to allow him to purge the contempt by complying with a new schedule.

The court deferred the issue of custody to trial but ordered a gradually increasing access schedule for the mother, transitioning to unsupervised and overnight access, conditional on her providing random negative drug tests.

The applicant mother sought leave to appeal a temporary order that granted the respondent father overnight parenting time on Tuesdays.

The applicant argued the motions judge erred in her use of a custody and access assessment report.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the motions judge properly considered the assessment report under the Children's Law Reform Act and that the applicant failed to meet the test for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a substantial indemnity basis.

This endorsement addresses the costs of an appeal, which was dismissed, concerning a mobility issue where the respondent was permitted to relocate with the child.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of over $40,000, while the appellant argued for no costs or $7,500.

The court applied the Family Law Rules, particularly r. 24(1) and 24(11), finding that the appellant's pursuit of the appeal was not unreasonable.

The court noted the respondent's failure to make an offer to settle, which precluded full indemnity costs under r. 18(14), and found the time spent by the respondent's counsel to be excessive, disallowing costs for junior counsel's attendance.

The court fixed costs at $17,500 inclusive, to be set off against any remaining equalization payment.

The respondent husband brought a motion to reduce an interim spousal support order of $16,848 per month to $7,000 per month, arguing a substantial change in circumstances due to business losses and capital erosion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the original interim order explicitly anticipated the husband would need to encroach on capital to maintain the marital standard of living due to his failure to provide adequate financial disclosure.

The court held that the heavy onus to vary a temporary order was not met and that final financial determinations should be left to the impending trial.

The moving party sought to change a prior consent order requiring payment of child support based on imputed income.

The motion followed a prior unsuccessful motion to change, which had been dismissed without prejudice due to insufficient evidence of a material change in circumstances.

The court found that the present proceeding was effectively a rehearing of the earlier motion without new or materially different evidence.

The court also concluded that the moving party remained capable of earning the previously imputed income and had failed to provide sufficient financial or medical evidence to justify variation.

The motion to change was dismissed and costs were awarded to the responding party.

In a family law proceeding involving child and spousal support, the court addressed the extent of participation permitted to a respondent whose Answer had been struck for repeated non‑compliance with disclosure orders.

The respondent had failed for an extended period to provide adequate financial disclosure despite multiple court orders and opportunities to comply.

The court balanced the Family Law Rules objective of dealing with cases justly against the need to deter parties from ignoring court orders and imposing unnecessary costs on the opposing party.

The court limited the respondent’s role at the upcoming uncontested hearing, permitting only written submissions and limited documentary disclosure from third parties, while prohibiting other forms of participation such as cross‑examination.

The applicant was permitted to call the respondent for cross‑examination if she chose.

Following the breakdown of a 16‑year marriage, the court addressed property division, child support, and spousal support.

The applicant sought unequal division of the matrimonial home and enforcement of several written agreements purporting to allocate the property to her.

The court held the agreements unenforceable due to lack of independent legal advice, uncertainty, and non‑compliance with statutory requirements, and found that equalization would not be unconscionable under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The respondent established entitlement to spousal support primarily on a needs basis due to a serious psychiatric condition limiting employability.

The court ordered ongoing and retroactive spousal support, modest retroactive child support, and equal division of the matrimonial home proceeds.

The applicant brought motions in a family law proceeding seeking to have the respondent found in contempt for failing to comply with prior court orders and to strike the respondent’s Answer for persistent disclosure failures.

The court reviewed a lengthy history of non-compliance with disclosure obligations, unpaid support, and failure to provide proof of compliance with prior orders regarding debts and financial disclosure.

While declining to immediately strike the Answer or make a contempt finding, the court granted an adjournment on strict conditions requiring proof of discharged loans, production of personal and corporate tax returns, updated financial disclosure, and payment toward support arrears.

The court warned that failure to comply with any of the terms could permit the applicant to move without notice to strike the respondent’s Answer.

In a family law trial, the court determined whether the parties had a valid Florida marriage where the respondent used an alias and whether that marriage was valid in Ontario under s. 31 of the Marriage Act.

Applying authorities on fraudulent misrepresentation in marriage formalities, the court held the misrepresentation did not invalidate the marriage because both parties intended to marry each other and understood each other’s identity.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant, ordered conditional access, and made child and spousal support orders after imputing $35,000 annual income to the respondent for inadequate disclosure and intentional underemployment findings.

The court denied both restraining-order requests and awarded partial-indemnity costs to the applicant.

In a family law motion, the moving party sought reinstatement of an existing parenting arrangement after the other parent unilaterally retained the child and refused to follow the court-ordered residential schedule.

Evidence indicated escalating conflict, the child’s refusal to return to the moving party’s residence, and concerning conduct by the responding parent, including hostility toward the moving party and disregard for court authority.

The court found that the responding parent’s behaviour undermined the child’s welfare and demonstrated an inability to participate in joint decision‑making.

Exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction, the court varied the prior joint custody order to grant the moving party interim sole custody while maintaining the existing residential schedule.

The matter was urgently referred to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to investigate and provide recommendations.