Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for failure to comply with previous court orders regarding financial disclosure and support payments, and to add third parties to the proceeding.

The respondent argued that his mental health challenges prevented him from complying with the orders.

The court found the respondent's non-compliance to be willful, noting inconsistencies between his claimed incapacity and his actions, such as international travel.

However, as striking pleadings is a remedy of last resort, the court declined to strike the pleadings at this time, giving the respondent one final 30-day opportunity to comply.

The motion to add parties was adjourned.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking sole decision-making authority to have the parties' three children vaccinated against COVID-19 without the applicant father's consent.

The mother relied on public health recommendations and previous case law taking judicial notice that the vaccines are safe and effective.

The father opposed the motion, arguing the vaccines were experimental and seeking to present expert evidence at trial.

The court declined to take judicial notice that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, finding the issue to be controversial and capable of dispute by reasonable people.

The motion was dismissed and the matter was deferred to trial to allow the father to present expert evidence.

The applicant sought costs of $15,552.88 following a successful motion regarding parenting time and the sale of the home.

The respondent argued costs should be in the cause.

The court found the applicant was the successful party, though not fully successful, and had made a reasonable offer to settle.

The court fixed the applicant's costs at $10,000, inclusive of costs thrown away from a prior adjournment, with payment deferred until the final determination of the case due to income disparity and the holding of house sale proceeds in trust.

The moving party mother brought a motion to change seeking to impose conditions on the responding party father's parenting time with their seven-year-old son, who was recently diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The court found a material change in circumstances and ordered a temporary stay of the existing parenting order, replacing it with a gradual reintegration plan facilitated by the child's behavioural therapist.

The mother's requests for sole decision-making authority and to change the child's surname were deferred and dismissed, respectively.

The applicant father sought sole decision-making authority to vaccinate the parties' 13-year-old child against COVID-19.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, relying on a doctor's note and the child's expressed wish not to be vaccinated.

The court took judicial notice of the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and found that the child's views were not independent but influenced by the mother and her retained doctor.

The court granted the father sole decision-making authority for the vaccine and ordered the mother not to provide the child with anti-vaccine information.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary child support.

The respondent father had been unemployed since 2017 and owned a vacant, mortgage-free rental property.

The court found the father had not made reasonable efforts to gain employment or utilize his property to generate income promptly upon separation.

The court imputed an income of $58,000 to the father for 2020 and ordered him to pay $13,776 in child support for that year, with ongoing support based on his new $100,000 salary.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for temporary decision-making and residential care of his two children in the context of a Motion to Change.

The respondent mother did not attend but indicated by email that she had asked the father to keep the children temporarily.

The court noted deficiencies in the father's affidavit regarding his living situation and childcare plans.

The court granted a limited temporary order allowing the father to obtain medical prescriptions for one child, register the children for online learning, and keep the children in his care until further order, while adjourning the motion for the father to file proper materials.

The applicant sought an urgent motion to address the respondent's withholding of parenting time for their son, alleging a significant breach of a final joint custody order.

The court found the situation met the urgency criteria established during the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing the motion to proceed in writing.

A timetable was set for the respondent's materials and any reply, with parties encouraged to file a proposed draft order for make-up access.

The Applicant, Maria Vittoria Costa, brought a motion seeking child support, section 7 expenses, and spousal support from the Respondent, Alexander (Sandro) Costa, following their separation after a 24-year marriage.

The court ordered Mr. Costa to pay child support arrears and ongoing table child support based on an imputed income of $180,097.

Additionally, Mr. Costa was ordered to pay his proportionate share of section 7 expenses for the adult children.

While the court found Ms. Costa had an entitlement to spousal support, it declined to make an order for spousal support for the period from September 2018 onwards, noting her Net Disposable Income was already higher than Mr. Costa's after other support payments.

Spousal support for earlier periods was deferred for further determination at trial or by subsequent motion due to insufficient financial information.

The mother brought a motion to strike the father's pleadings due to his persistent failure to comply with court orders regarding financial disclosure and payment of costs.

The court granted the motion to strike the pleadings, noting the father's cavalier attitude towards his obligations.

However, the court declined to immediately impute an income of $180,000 to the father as requested by the mother, instead giving him a final opportunity to provide proper corporate and personal tax disclosure.

The court also dismissed the mother's claim to set aside the property provisions of their separation agreement based on the father's non-disclosure of a tax refund, as the agreement contained a clear waiver of financial disclosure.

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary custody and an order restricting the respondent mother's access to their surviving child to a supervised access centre, following the tragic drowning death of their other child while in the mother's care.

The mother, who was facing criminal charges related to the death, brought a cross-motion for increased supervised access in the community.

The court dismissed the father's motion to restrict access to a centre, finding no evidence that the mother posed a risk of harm while supervised by approved third parties.

The court ordered that the mother have supervised access in the community and daily video contact, emphasizing the child's best interests and the principle of maximum contact.

The parties separated after an 11-year marriage with four children.

The applicant sought sole custody, spousal support, and occupation rent, while the respondent sought joint custody and primary residence.

The case involved high conflict, with the applicant making numerous unfounded reports of child abuse to the police and CAS.

The court relied on an OCL assessment, finding that the applicant was traumatized by the respondent's controlling behaviour during the marriage.

The court awarded sole custody to the applicant, finding joint custody unworkable due to the power imbalance and conflict.

The applicant was found entitled to compensatory spousal support and occupation rent for the period the respondent lived in the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The co-respondents, Louis Montello and Las Princesas Corp., brought a motion under Rule 25(19)(d) of the Family Law Rules to set aside specific paragraphs of a final order obtained by Monique Abitbol without notice.

The impugned paragraphs disentitled Montello and Las Princesas from further participation and declared them to be holding the "Golden Beach" property in trust for Alberto Benarroch.

Applying the factors from Mountain View Farms Ltd. v. McQueen, the court found that while there was no compelling excuse for the co-respondents' default in filing an Answer, they had an arguable defense on the merits.

The court determined that allowing the ex-parte declaratory relief to stand would cause disproportionate prejudice to the co-respondents and undermine the integrity of justice.

The motion was granted, setting aside the contested paragraphs, with terms including payment of prior costs and an expedited timetable for the proceeding.

The applicant father sought the return of his two youngest children to Bahrain after the respondent mother brought them to Ontario following a vacation in Pakistan.

The father had obtained a sole custody order in Bahrain without notice to the mother.

The court found that while the children were habitually resident in Bahrain, Ontario should assume jurisdiction under s. 22(1)(b) of the Children's Law Reform Act due to the family's strong connections to Ontario, evidence of domestic violence, and the discriminatory nature of Bahraini family law.

The court declined to recognize the Bahraini custody order and granted temporary sole custody to the mother.

The applicant sought full recovery of her actual costs for a motion, relying on the respondent's unreasonable conduct.

The respondent did not file a response.

The court reviewed recent appellate jurisprudence on family law costs, noting the confusion caused by the decisions in Berta and Forrester.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and finding the respondent's conduct unreasonable, the court awarded the applicant her actual costs of $11,829.96.

The applicant father brought a motion to terminate child support for his 20-year-old son, arguing the son was old enough to provide for himself and that they had no relationship.

The respondent mother opposed and sought an increase in support and payment of arrears.

The court found the son remained a child of the marriage as he was pursuing post-secondary education, and ordered the father to continue paying table support until at least April 2018.

The court also ordered the father to pay $3,580.32 in child support arrears, but dismissed the claim for section 7 expenses, finding the son could fund his own education through RESPs, OSAP, and part-time work.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking permission to travel to Egypt with the parties' nine-year-old son for a two-week vacation.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, citing the child's complex special needs, the Government of Canada's travel advisory for Egypt, and concerns that the father posed a flight risk.

The court applied a cost/benefit analysis to determine the child's best interests.

While acknowledging the benefit of the child meeting his paternal grandparents, the court dismissed the motion, finding that the risks associated with the child's impulsive behaviours, the unfamiliar environment, and the unpredictable security situation in Egypt outweighed the benefits.

This motion addressed the reasonableness of the Applicant mother's refusals to contribute to specific s. 7 expenses for the parties' two children.

The Respondent father sought payment for past post-secondary and competitive hockey expenses, and a prospective order for s. 7 contributions.

The court strictly adhered to the scope of a prior order, limiting the review to expenses incurred up to March 10, 2016, and rejecting the father's attempt to expand the motion into a de facto motion to change.

The court ordered the mother to pay 40% of Ashley's post-secondary income shortfall ($760) and a reduced amount for Michael's hockey expenses ($2,022), after disallowing mileage and certain other items.

The mother's refusal to contribute to these allowed amounts was deemed unreasonable.

The father's request for a go-forward order was dismissed.

Following reasons for judgment in three related proceedings involving family and civil claims concerning transfers of funds and marital issues, the court addressed costs.

The successful party sought recovery of substantial legal fees incurred across the proceedings.

The court considered proportionality, reasonableness, the complexity of the litigation, and conduct of the parties during the proceedings, including disclosure issues.

Exercising its discretion, the court fixed a global costs award inclusive of disbursements and taxes for all three proceedings.

The child protection agency brought a summary judgment motion seeking a final order placing a child in the custody of the maternal grandfather under s. 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The child had lived with the grandfather under society supervision for over three years and was doing well in that placement.

One parent opposed the motion and sought delay to demonstrate rehabilitation from substance abuse and criminal issues, arguing the matter should proceed to trial.

The court held that the responding party failed to demonstrate a genuine issue requiring a trial under Rule 16 and that the child’s need for permanency and stability outweighed the request for additional time.

Summary judgment was granted placing the child in the grandfather’s sole custody with parental access at the grandfather’s discretion.