Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a civil proceeding to enforce an alleged intra-family loan of $105,798.75 against his brother and sister-in-law.

The sister-in-law, who was engaged in family law proceedings against the brother, opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to add the plaintiff and his corporation to the family law matter, alleging the loan was fabricated to shield assets from equalization.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues of credibility regarding the source of the funds and the brothers' intertwined finances.

The court also dismissed the cross-motion to add parties, instead ordering a focussed trial under the Family Law Rules to determine the validity of the loan, while staying the civil action.

The applicant wife brought a motion for the interim sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home.

The respondent husband opposed the sale and brought a cross-motion seeking to have the applicant's interest transferred to him or to be granted exclusive possession.

The court applied the principles for partition and sale in family law cases, finding the applicant had a prima facie right to sale and the respondent failed to show his family law claims would be unfairly prejudiced.

The court noted it lacked jurisdiction to compel one joint tenant to sell to the other.

The motion for sale was granted, with each party to receive 25% of the net proceeds and the balance held in trust pending trial.

The moving party brought a motion seeking the release of net proceeds from the sale of a property, which were being held in trust.

The responding party opposed, arguing that a joint credit line/mortgage debt and property tax arrears on other properties needed to be paid from the proceeds first.

The court ordered that $70,000 be retained in trust to cover the outstanding credit line/mortgage debt, with the balance released to the moving party.

The court declined to order the payment of the unspecified property tax arrears from these funds.

The applicant sought to expand his parenting time with the two children of the marriage.

The respondent opposed, arguing no material change in circumstances and raising concerns about the applicant's alleged substance abuse.

The court found several compelling material changes, including the children becoming school-aged, an incident exposing children to adult conflict, and the applicant's changed work schedule.

The court granted an expansion of parenting time, implementing a graduated schedule leading to overnight visits, and ordered the applicant to undergo drug and alcohol testing.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking an equal/shared parenting schedule for the parties' two children.

The applicant mother opposed, seeking to reduce the father's parenting time.

The court rejected the mother's position, finding she unilaterally created the post-separation status quo by withholding the children without justification.

While giving some weight to the older child's views for a "home base" the court emphasized the children's need for a strong relationship with both parents.

A temporary parenting schedule was ordered, significantly expanding the father's parenting time, including alternating weekends with Monday drop-off and weeknight visits.

The mother was ordered to pay costs to the father due to her unreasonable conduct.

This trial addressed two outstanding issues from a prior settlement: whether the payor spouse's spousal support obligation should bind his estate, and if so, whether it should be secured.

The court found that the recipient spouse was in need and that the payor's death was not unanticipated given his age and declining health.

Applying principles from Katz v. Katz, the court ordered a limited spousal support obligation of $25,000 to bind the payor's estate, but declined to order security for this obligation, citing the payor's uninsurability and potential complications for future asset sales.

The applicant brought an oral motion for the recusal of the trial judge, alleging bias due to the judge's prior involvement in case management and administrative functions related to the file.

The respondent opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, finding that the applicant failed to meet the high onus of establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The decision emphasized the presumption of judicial impartiality, the fact-specific nature of recusal cases, and the importance of judicial continuity in family law proceedings.

This motion concerned the scheduling of a "fourth weekend" of parenting time for a five-year-old child, River, in a blended family context.

The applicant father, a long-distance truck driver, proposed a variable schedule based on the last weekend of each month due to his work.

The respondent mother sought a fixed four-week cycle to ensure her son could spend one weekend per month with his half-sister.

The court prioritized the child's best interests, finding that the father's variable schedule would lead to unreasonable gaps in the mother's time with both children and was more cumbersome for planning.

The court granted the mother's request for a fixed four-week cycle.

This decision provides supplemental reasons for judgment following a trial, addressing outstanding issues of retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, section 7 expenses, and life insurance as security.

The court determined the duration and quantum of spousal support, denied most of the respondent's claims for additional section 7 expenses due to lack of notice or proof, and declined to order life insurance security due to lack of evidence on insurability, instead ordering the support obligation to be binding on the payor's estate.

The court also calculated the final financial reconciliation between the parties.

The mother, a general surgeon, brought a motion to temporarily relocate the parties' five-year-old child to Kapuskasing for alternating months while she completed a one-year employment contract.

The parents previously shared joint decision-making and equal residential parenting in Renfrew.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the extensive travel and disruption of attending two different schools would not be in the child's best interests.

The child was ordered to remain in the father's primary care in Renfrew for the duration of the contract, with generous parenting time for the mother.

Following a lengthy custody and mobility trial where the applicant mother was largely successful, she sought costs of $276,850.

The respondent father, who was self-represented after having four different lawyers, failed to file costs submissions despite multiple extensions.

The court found the father's behaviour throughout the litigation to be highly unreasonable, unnecessarily prolonging the trial.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant costs at the mid-to-high end of partial recovery, fixing the total amount at $97,745 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following a 27-day family law trial where the mother was permitted to relocate to England with the children, the self-represented father requested a further 30-40 day extension to file his costs submissions.

The father had already delayed the process through multiple changes of counsel and had missed a previous peremptory deadline.

The court noted the need for finality and the prejudice to the mother.

The court granted one final, peremptory extension of just over two weeks for the father to file his submissions, and ordered that he bring no further motions without leave.

The moving party (respondent in the main application) brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the responding party's claim for child support.

The parties had previously executed a separation agreement waiving child support, and the moving party argued he did not have a settled intention to treat the responding party's children as his own.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that genuine issues for trial existed regarding whether the separation agreement's support provisions should be set aside and whether the moving party stood in loco parentis to the children.

The court held that credibility issues and the need for financial disclosure precluded summary judgment under the restricted test of Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support.

The respondent had lost his employment and started unsuccessful business ventures, including purchasing an expensive motor home.

The court found the respondent intentionally under-employed and imputed an income of $90,000 based on his earning capacity.

The court also imputed income to the applicant based on full-time employment.

Interim child support of $1,293 per month and spousal support of $500 per month were ordered, with the respondent's equity in the matrimonial home standing as security.

The respondent mother brought a motion to find the applicant father in contempt and to strike his pleadings due to his failure to provide financial disclosure and his delay in paying the retainer for a court-ordered assessment of the children.

The court found that the father willfully breached multiple court orders, prejudicing the mother's ability to determine his income for support purposes and delaying the resolution of custody issues.

Applying the test for striking pleadings under Rule 14(23) of the Family Law Rules, the court struck the father's pleadings on the issues of equalization and support, allowing the mother to proceed to an uncontested hearing on those issues.

The court declined to strike his pleadings regarding custody and access in the best interests of the children.

The applicant brought a motion seeking retroactive and ongoing spousal support, an order imputing income to the respondent, life insurance beneficiary designation, medical and dental coverage, and related relief following a long-term marriage and separation nine years earlier.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing that the applicant had failed to provide full financial disclosure and that entitlement to support and equalization issues were unresolved.

The court applied the principles governing imputation of income under s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and the test from Drygala v. Pauli.

It found insufficient evidence that the respondent was intentionally unemployed and declined to impute income.

Given extensive conflicting evidence regarding post‑separation trusts, assets, and disclosure, the court held that entitlement to spousal support and equalization issues should be determined at trial rather than on a motion.

The parents and two First Nations appealed a trial decision making two First Nations children Crown wards with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The appellants argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors of fact, erred in finding Crown wardship was the least restrictive alternative, and that the mother received ineffective assistance of counsel.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, which included significant parenting deficits, developmental delays that improved in care, and the need for stability.

The court also admitted fresh evidence but concluded it did not warrant a new trial or a change to the order, affirming that Crown wardship with no access remained in the children's best interests.

The parties had an unconventional marriage, living apart for 17 years while the applicant worked abroad for the United Nations and the respondent raised their four children in Ottawa.

The applicant argued the valuation date for equalization should be April 1992, while the respondent argued it should be May 31, 2009, after a final period of cohabitation.

The court found that although the parties were separated from 2002 to 2008, there was always a reasonable prospect of reconciliation, and they did in fact reconcile in May 2008.

The valuation date was determined to be the date of final separation, May 31, 2009.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2) to set aside portions of a consent final order regarding shared custody, arguing her consent was obtained under duress.

The applicant claimed she was coerced into signing the agreement after the motions judge indicated in open court that he would otherwise grant primary residence to the respondent and restrict the applicant to supervised access.

The court found that the motions judge's comments placed illegitimate pressure on the applicant, vitiating her consent.

The motion was granted, the shared custody provisions were set aside, and the prior temporary arrangement was reinstated pending a case conference.

Following a protracted family law trial primarily concerning the equalization of net family property and the valuation of the applicant's business, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found that the parties had divided success on the central issue of business valuation, and thus each party would bear their own costs for that portion of the trial.

However, the applicant was successful on the remaining issues, including retroactive support and the value of the matrimonial home.

The court concluded that none of the offers to settle triggered Rule 18(14) cost consequences and rejected allegations of bad faith from both sides.

The applicant was awarded costs fixed at $45,950 plus HST for the issues on which she succeeded.