Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The case concerns the equalization of net family property following a divorce.

Key issues included the valuation and exclusion of jewellery, the valuation of Pakistani investment certificates (Habib Bank Certificates), the beneficial ownership of Behbood Savings Certificates, the characterization of monetary gifts to the respondent's sisters, the treatment of religious Dasond obligations as a debt, and whether funds received from the respondent's brother constituted a loan.

The court determined the proper valuation of jewellery, found the premature encashment of Habib Certificates resulted in a loss borne by the respondent, dismissed the claim of beneficial ownership in Behbood Certificates, attributed a portion of the gifts to the respondent's net family property due to reckless depletion, ruled Dasond is not a secular debt, and found the brother's funds were a gift, not a loan.

Post-separation adjustments and dower claims were also addressed.

The applicant father brought a motion to gradually expand his parenting time with the parties' 8-month-old child and to transition the visits from the mother's verandah to his own residence.

The mother sought an adjournment, citing the father's failure to provide a criminal record check and her desire to forensically review video evidence of an alleged assault, which the court dismissed.

The court granted the father's motion for expanded parenting time, finding that it was in the child's best interests to foster a meaningful relationship with the father away from the parents' conflict, and that the mother's concerns regarding breastfeeding and the father's past substance abuse were sufficiently addressed.

The Respondent brought a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home, while the Applicant brought a cross-motion for spousal and child support and for the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion for the sale of the home, finding it was not in the children's best interests due to their special needs and the need for stability, and that the Respondent had no urgent need for the funds.

The Applicant's motion for spousal and child support was dismissed as the court found no evidentiary basis to impute income to the Respondent at the interim stage.

The Applicant's request for OCL involvement was granted to provide unbiased evidence regarding the children's best interests.

Plaintiff Can Duc Diep sought summary judgment against defendant Huong Thi Duong, alleging a fraudulent conveyance of equity from her ex-spouse, co-defendant Hien Cong Pham.

Diep had already obtained judgment against Pham and now sought judgment against Duong for $296,675.

Counsel for Duong raised preliminary objections, arguing the motion was an abuse of process and that a trial would be more efficient.

The court dismissed these preliminary objections, finding no abuse of process and that the motion for full summary judgment was appropriate, ordering the matter to proceed to argument.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated in 2017.

The father sought custody and access to their 13-year-old son, while the mother sought sole custody and an order that the child not be forced to have contact with his father against his will.

The court found that the father had been emotionally and verbally abusive to both the mother and the child, leading to the child's severe estrangement and refusal to see his father.

Despite numerous attempts at reunification therapy and court-ordered access, the child's mental health deteriorated.

The court granted sole custody to the mother and ordered that any access be at her sole discretion, taking into account the child's wishes.

The father was granted decision-making authority solely regarding the child's interest in a property in Sri Lanka.

The moving party father brought a motion to change a 2008 separation agreement, seeking to terminate child support for three adult children, terminate spousal support, and rescind arrears.

The responding party mother cross-moved for retroactive adjustments based on imputed income.

The court terminated child support for the two oldest children as of their 23rd birthdays, as agreed in the separation agreement, and ordered table support for the youngest child until her 23rd birthday.

The court declined to terminate spousal support immediately, ordering it to continue until 13 years from the date of the agreement.

The court declined to impute income to the father and refused to rescind his arrears, finding he had no reasonable excuse for unilaterally reducing support payments without formal variation.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment on a status review application, seeking an extended society care order for a two-year-old child with a plan for adoption.

The mother, who struggled with addiction and mental health issues, did not respond to the motion.

The court granted the extended society care order, finding no genuine issue for trial.

The court also determined that the order could not be silent on access, as requested by the Society, and instead explicitly ordered no access for either parent, while leaving open the issue of the child's access to her sibling and maternal grandparents.

The applicant brought a motion to change spousal support terms set out in a separation agreement, seeking to terminate support based on a material change in circumstances.

Within this proceeding, the applicant brought a motion to compel the respondent to retain an expert to value her self-employment income and to provide extensive financial disclosure dating back to 2016.

The court dismissed the request for an expert valuation, finding it disproportionate given the respondent's modest income compared to the applicant's.

The court partially granted the disclosure request, limiting the timeframe to August 2017 to December 2018, balancing the need for a full case with the prohibition against fishing expeditions.

The applicant sought costs following a successful family law application.

The court considered the applicant's success and her genuine attempts to resolve the matter through an offer to settle.

Applying Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $5,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable forthwith by the respondent.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final order regarding child and spousal support, seeking to terminate child support for the eldest child (Simona) upon her obtaining a first post-secondary degree and to adjust support for the younger child (Thomas).

The respondent mother sought to continue child support for Simona and delete the terminating events from the original order.

The court found Simona was no longer a "child of the marriage" as she had obtained her first degree and demonstrated self-sufficiency through scholarships, part-time work, and student loans (which she did not need to access).

The court dismissed the respondent's request to delete the terminating events and ordered the termination of child support for Simona effective April 30, 2016.

Child support for Thomas was recalculated based on the applicant's income, and spousal support was adjusted according to the Consumer Price Index.

The applicant was granted credits for overpaid child support and tuition tax benefits.

The applicant, having been successful on a motion for summary judgment, sought costs of $42,000 and alleged bad faith by the respondent.

The court declined to find bad faith but noted the respondent's unreasonable conduct, including failing to comply with disclosure orders, which unnecessarily expanded the record.

The court rejected the respondent's claim of impecuniosity, finding her lifestyle inconsistent with her stated income.

Costs were awarded to the applicant fixed at $25,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following a trial on motions to change child support where the self-represented applicant father was largely successful, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court considered the principles for awarding costs to self-represented litigants, including the value of time lost from work.

The applicant sought $6,714.63 based on his hourly employment rate.

After considering the mixed success on some issues, the dismissal of a motion to strike, and the reasonableness of the parties' conduct, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $3,000.

The court issued a ruling on costs and other issues following a judgment on child support, spousal support, and equalization.

The Applicant was found to be more successful overall.

The court corrected an inadvertent error in the spousal support calculation based on an outdated program, adjusting the monthly payment.

It declined to revisit the date of marriage value of the Respondent's Book of Business as it was not disputed at trial.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,000 to the Applicant, secured the equalization payment against the matrimonial home, and ordered pre and post-judgment interest.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking interim joint custody and an access schedule in accordance with a s. 30 assessment report by Dr. Butkowsky.

The applicant father opposed, arguing the report's recommendations should not be implemented before trial and that the 14-year-old son wished to reside primarily with him.

The court found no 'exceptional circumstances' requiring immediate implementation of the report's recommendations, but considered the assessor's observational evidence.

The court ordered that the son reside primarily with the father but have regular weekend access with the mother, overriding the son's stated preference based on his observed comfort with her.

The father was also ordered to pay child support, spousal support, and his proportionate share of the assessment report costs.

This is a ruling on costs following a focused trial concerning a child's schooling, telephone access, and passport sharing.

The respondent father was largely successful on the primary issue of schooling, which was the main contention.

While success was mixed on the smaller issues of phone access and passport sharing, the applicant mother's position on the school issue was deemed unreasonable.

Despite the applicant's financial circumstances, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondent, emphasizing the need to encourage parties to consider the consequences of untenable litigation positions.

Following a motion for interim disbursements and other relief, the court ruled on outstanding disclosure and costs.

The respondent was ordered to produce various financial documents, including tax returns from 2010 to 2014, to assist in determining income for support purposes.

The applicant sought over $90,000 in costs for the motion.

Finding mixed success but noting the applicant was more successful on the primary issue of interim disbursements, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $15,000.

Following a family law motion involving parenting issues, the applicant sought costs of $3,710 on a partial indemnity basis, representing approximately 60 percent of legal fees incurred.

The respondents argued that the motion result was mixed because the applicant sought supervised access for the father with the younger child, which the court did not order.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court considered the presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs along with factors such as the reasonableness of the parties’ behaviour and the divided success on the motion.

The court concluded that the success on the motion was shared.

As a result, no costs were awarded.

The applicant step-father sought an order dispensing with the biological father's consent to the adoption of a four-year-old child.

The biological father had been absent from the child's life since birth due to living in Morocco, but had paid child support and recently sought access upon returning to Canada.

The court found that dispensing with consent was not in the child's best interests, as the biological father had shown a commitment to the child and there was no evidence he posed a harm or negative influence.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a prior family law order concerning child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses.

The court adjusted child support in accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines based on the father's updated income and ordered payment of limited arrears.

Claims that the father had defaulted on university-related section 7 expenses were largely rejected because the existing order required contributions only after deducting scholarships, employment income, and other resources, which had covered the child’s university costs.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the recipient spouse’s cohabitation with a new partner and resulting financial improvement.

Spousal support was reduced but not terminated, and the father was ordered to pay certain spousal support arrears and maintain required life insurance.

The parties, who separated in 1991 after a traditional marriage, both brought motions to change a 1993 spousal support order.

The moving party sought to terminate his $500 monthly spousal support obligation, citing his retirement, health issues, and the responding party's improved financial position.

The responding party brought a cross-motion seeking an increase in support due to inflation and ongoing economic disadvantage.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that neither party had met the threshold burden of establishing a material change in circumstances that would justify varying the existing order.