Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

Following separation and the applicant's assignment in bankruptcy, the respondent sought to quantify claims against the applicant arising from his failure to comply with their separation agreement.

The respondent claimed increased mortgage costs resulting from the applicant's refusal to sign a mortgage renewal, reimbursement for payments on two joint lines of credit, and sought to characterize these debts as spousal support to survive the bankruptcy.

The court found the debts were property and debt settlements, not spousal support, and valued the respondent's claims for filing in the bankruptcy.

The court also held that a post-bankruptcy costs award relating to pre-bankruptcy litigation was provable in the bankruptcy.

A request to revive a withdrawn divorce claim was denied.

In a family law matter involving equalization of net family property, spousal support, child support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, the applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for persistent non-compliance with multiple court orders and to determine the amount of penalty owing under a prior endorsement.

The respondent, who relocated to Florida and failed to provide complete financial disclosure despite numerous opportunities and court orders, was found to be in continued breach of disclosure obligations.

The court struck the respondent's pleadings, finding a consistent pattern of non-compliance and disregard for court process, and ordered the respondent to pay a penalty of $399,000 for non-compliance with the disclosure order.

The matter will proceed to an uncontested trial.

The Superior Court of Justice heard a family law trial concerning parenting, child support, spousal support, and a tort claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The court granted a divorce, established joint decision-making responsibility with the mother having final authority, and set a parenting schedule with the mother as primary caregiver during the school year and week-about time during summer.

Child support was ordered based on the father's income.

The mother was found entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and needs bases, but no amount was ordered due to the father's inability to pay after child support.

The mother's claim for damages for intentional infliction of mental suffering was dismissed as the father's conduct, while insensitive, was not found to be flagrant, outrageous, or calculated to cause harm.

This decision addresses an uncontested trial in a family law matter, covering parenting issues, child and spousal support, section 7 expenses, equalization of net family property, and post-separation adjustments.

The Respondent failed to file an Answer or participate.

The court granted the Applicant sole decision-making responsibility, ordered child support and limited section 7 expenses, and granted a divorce.

It denied spousal support and a blanket relocation order due to insufficient evidentiary foundation.

The court also adjusted the equalization payment, finding the Applicant had received a disproportionate share of matrimonial home sale proceeds, and awarded costs to the Applicant.

The parties separated after a 13-year marriage during which they operated successful businesses together.

The applicant sought spousal support under the Family Law Act, claiming she was unable to work due to medical conditions stemming from carbon monoxide exposure at work.

The respondent opposed the claim and sought a divorce.

The court lifted the statutory stay on the provincial support claim, found the applicant entitled to non-compensatory needs-based support due to her disability, and imputed some income to her.

The court ordered the respondent to pay indefinite ongoing spousal support of $1,450 per month and retroactive arrears of $90,399.

The parties, an unmarried couple, each brought a motion to change parenting time for their two children.

The applicant father sought to expand his parenting time to an equal regime, while the respondent mother sought to reduce the father's parenting time and requested Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) involvement.

The court granted the father's request for equal temporary parenting time, finding his proposal to be in the children's best interests, and dismissed the mother's request to reduce time.

The court also requested OCL involvement and made orders regarding pick-up/drop-off locations and telephone access.

Costs were awarded to the father.

The Respondent father moved to set aside Minutes of Settlement (MOS), arguing the Applicant mother fundamentally breached them by commencing a new defamation proceeding in Iran the day after signing the MOS, which was intended to consolidate all litigation.

The Applicant mother cross-moved to enforce the MOS and for the Ontario court to assume jurisdiction over parenting issues.

The court found that the Applicant's failure to disclose and refusal to withdraw the Iranian defamation claim constituted a fundamental breach of the MOS, as the agreement's core purpose was to terminate all multi-jurisdictional litigation arising from the marriage breakdown in favour of an alternative dispute resolution process in Ontario.

The court set aside the MOS, dismissed the Applicant's cross-motion, and declined to address the question of jurisdiction at that stage.

This endorsement addresses the quantum of costs following the dismissal of the Applicant Wife's motion for partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The motion was dismissed because a prior consent order permitted the Respondent Husband to purchase the Applicant's interest.

The Respondent sought full recovery costs, citing the Applicant's unreasonable litigation conduct and an offer to settle.

The court found the Applicant's conduct unreasonable, including ignoring page limits, attempting to argue issues beyond time limits, misrepresenting hardship, and making unfounded allegations of fraud.

However, full recovery costs were denied because the Respondent's offer to settle was a final offer on equalization and not specific to the motion in question.

The Respondent was awarded partial indemnity costs of $5,500, inclusive of HST and disbursements, to be deducted from the Applicant's share of the matrimonial home.

Following a 14-day family law trial, the self-represented respondent sought costs on a near full recovery scale.

The court found the respondent was entirely successful on major issues and had made multiple reasonable offers to settle, which the applicant failed to beat.

The court noted the applicant's appalling behaviour at trial, unreasonable positions, and failure to make any formal offers to settle.

The respondent was awarded $200,000 in costs, which included compensation for his own time and his assistant's time.

The final amount payable by the applicant was reduced to $138,075 after setting off future periodic and compensatory spousal support obligations.

The court issued a corrigenda to an endorsement released on August 18, 2016.

The amendment added a sub-paragraph adjourning the applicant's motion for an order removing the prevention of the parents attending the children's events while in the care of the other parent.

The motion was adjourned to be brought back in accordance with the Family Law Rules.

The applicant and respondent both brought motions for interim relief in a high-conflict family law proceeding.

The applicant sought to relocate with the children to Blue Mountain, exclusive possession of a chalet, and a restraining order based on allegations of stalking and electronic spying.

The respondent sought to sever the divorce from corollary issues, a restraining order, and an updated custody assessment.

The court dismissed all substantive motions, finding no compelling reason to vary the interim parenting status quo, insufficient evidence to support the restraining orders, and potential prejudice to the applicant regarding medical benefits if the divorce were severed.

The respondent husband brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant wife's claims for divorce, spousal support, and property equalization, arguing that their religious marriage ceremony was legally invalid because no marriage licence was obtained.

The wife argued she entered the marriage in good faith, intending to comply with the Marriage Act, and relied on the husband's representation that a licence could be obtained later.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding that the conflicting factual assertions regarding the validity of the marriage and the parties' intentions created a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The applicant brought a motion for the sale of the former matrimonial home, while the respondent brought a cross-motion to transfer the proceeding to Simcoe County and for financial disclosure.

The court adjourned the transfer request as premature and ordered both parties to comply with prior disclosure consents.

Finding that the parties owned the home as tenants in common, the court granted the applicant's motion for sale, noting his prima facie right to partition or sale under the Partition Act and the absence of evidence showing malicious conduct or jeopardy to the respondent.

The parties, who continued to reside in the matrimonial home post-separation, brought competing motions regarding the temporary custody of their children and exclusive possession of the home.

The mother sought exclusive possession due to the toxic home environment adversely affecting the children, while the father sought the pre-trial sale of the home and alleged parental alienation.

The court granted the mother temporary exclusive possession, finding that the high-conflict environment was intolerable and detrimental to the children's best interests.

The father's motion for the pre-trial sale of the home was dismissed to prevent further emotional disruption to the children.

Both parties' requests for psychiatric assessments of the other were also dismissed.

This corrigendum corrected an earlier family law endorsement released on a motion by the applicant.

The court held that part of the earlier endorsement had been made in error and did not accord with the form of order actually signed.

Pursuant to Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules, the court amended paragraph 11 by deleting wording that stated the respondent was incapable of managing her property.

The court further clarified that it had made no determination of incapacity within the meaning of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, and confirmed that the signed order remained in full force and effect.

This costs endorsement followed a family law motion in which the applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement and obtain support, equalization, and extensive disclosure relief.

The court found mixed success as against non-party business associates and corporations and ordered no costs between them and the applicant.

As between the spouses, the respondent was the successful party on the omnibus motion, although he consented after submissions to provide additional disclosure relevant to valuation and income analysis.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that the respondent's disclosure conduct did not rise to the level of unreasonable behaviour disentitling him to costs, but it reduced the quantum having regard to proportionality and the applicant's financial circumstances.

In a family property motion, the respondent sought an order requiring a jointly retained business valuator to expand his mandate to calculate notional income tax liabilities and provide alternative valuation opinions, and alternatively sought to use another expert retained by the applicant.

The court held that the Family Law Rules concerning expert duties and court-appointed experts did not authorize the court to enlarge a joint retainer without both parties' consent or compel an expert to act in a conflict position.

The court also rejected the argument that the expert-duty provisions altered the traditional role of experts, relying on appellate authority confirming those rules merely restated existing common law duties.

The motion was dismissed.

On a family law motion to change a final parenting order, the moving party sought to terminate or suspend the father's access based on the children's anxiety and refusal to attend visits.

The court found a material change in circumstances arising from prolonged parental conflict, the children's increased exposure to that conflict, and their age and expressed preferences.

The court also found evidence that some of the children's negative views were independently held, but that other views had been seriously influenced by the mother.

A final variation was declined; instead, the court made a temporary order reinstating access on graduated terms, requiring both parents to attend a parenting after separation program, and directing a Voice of the Children report.

The respondent brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order preserving one‑half of the proceeds of sale of a property pending trial of a constructive trust and unjust enrichment claim between former common‑law partners.

The moving party argued the motion judge erred by referring to the parties as married and by referencing equalization payments despite the parties not being legally married.

The court held that the motion judge correctly understood the claim as one grounded in constructive trust and unjust enrichment and properly applied the interlocutory injunction test under s. 12(b) of the Family Law Act to preserve property.

The court found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the order and concluded the proposed appeal raised no issue of general or public importance.

The court also ordered temporary guideline child support based on the payor’s Employment Insurance income and declined to order retroactive support due to insufficient evidence.

The applicant moved for temporary spousal support, while the respondent moved for possession and sale of the matrimonial home, dispensing with the applicant's consent for the sale, and a restraining order.

The court awarded temporary spousal support to the applicant, imputing a modest income to her while recognizing her need and language barriers.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home but declined to dispense with the applicant's consent or to issue a restraining order due to lack of evidence.

Costs were awarded to the successful applicant.