Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The applicant mother sought full indemnity costs of $9,808 after successfully bringing a motion regarding the respondent father's repeated breaches of a final parenting order.

The father argued the mother behaved unreasonably and cited his inability to pay.

The court found the father engaged in bad faith conduct by deliberately breaching the order shortly after signing Minutes of Settlement.

Considering the father's bad faith, the complexity of the motion, and his financial challenges, the court awarded the mother fixed costs of $8,000, payable in monthly installments.

The Applicant Mother sought to change a Final Order regarding joint decision-making and equally shared parenting of three children, citing a material change in circumstances due to the Respondent Father's non-compliance with court orders, communication issues, and family violence.

The Father sought a return to equally shared parenting.

The court found a material change in circumstances, granted Mother final decision-making authority, and significantly reduced Father's parenting time to alternate Saturdays (non-overnight) and specified holiday time.

Despite imputing income to the Father, no child support was ordered payable by him due to undue hardship based on the Household Standards of Living test.

The Respondent father sought orders for additional summer parenting time, delivery of a canoe, Annika's iPhone password, and adjustment of child support payments.

The court dismissed the requests for expanded parenting time and travel, emphasizing the children's best interests and the principle against varying interim orders without a substantial change in circumstances.

The child support issue was resolved by consent, reducing the father's payments.

The canoe and password issues were also resolved by agreement.

The court noted the extensive litigation history and urged the parties to proceed to trial.

The court issued a final costs endorsement in a family law matter.

The respondent had successfully moved to set aside a previous order, which had included a full indemnity costs award against her.

The court reduced the original costs payable by the respondent from $12,000 to $6,000, finding her initial non-participation inadvertent.

However, the court denied the respondent's request for costs for her successful motion to set aside the order, ruling that she had received an "indulgence" for her oversight, which precluded her from recovering costs.

Ultimately, no costs were awarded to either party for the proceedings subsequent to the initial May 2021 order.

The respondent wife sought summary judgment to dismiss the applicant husband's application to set aside a separation agreement.

The husband's application sought to set aside the agreement based on non-disclosure, lack of understanding, and unconscionability, and sought relief related to parenting, support, and property equalization.

The court dismissed most of the husband's claims, including setting aside the agreement from its inception, varying a prior parenting order, and property equalization (due to limitation period and lack of merit).

However, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding whether the support provisions of the separation agreement resulted in unconscionable circumstances under s. 33(4) of the Family Law Act.

The husband failed to attend the motion despite multiple warnings.

The applicant father brought an interim motion for partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, seeking to defer the issue to trial where she intends to request a time-limited order for exclusive possession.

The mother also asserted substantial claims for retroactive support and equalization payments, which could be satisfied by the father's interest in the home.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding the immediate sale premature.

The decision emphasized the attenuated principles for interim partition and sale of a matrimonial home, requiring a holistic review that considers the best interests of the children and potential prejudice to the responding party's legitimate family law claims, such as exclusive possession or equalization.

The court noted the parties' prior promise to the children to allow them to remain in the home, the imminence of trial, and the lack of clear practical advantage to the father in an immediate sale, as proceeds would likely be held in trust.

The applicant father brought a motion for primary residence and temporary decision-making authority for the parties' 16-month-old child, as well as supervised parenting time for the respondent mother.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking primary residence and unsupervised parenting time.

Both parties alleged abusive conduct and mental health issues against the other.

The court found cogent evidence that the child's safety was at risk in the mother's unsupervised care due to her mental health struggles, including suicidal ideation and blackouts.

The court granted the father temporary primary residence and final decision-making authority, and ordered the mother to have supervised parenting time and undergo a psychological evaluation.

The parties, who were in the middle of a divorce, brought competing interim motions regarding the parenting of their five-year-old daughter.

The respondent mother sought to relocate with the child from Whitby to Keswick, while the applicant father sought to increase his parenting time to an equal shared schedule.

The court dismissed the mother's relocation motion, finding it premature to decide before trial.

The court partially granted the father's motion, increasing his parenting time to better accommodate his schedule and minimize disruptions, but declined to order equal shared parenting on an interim basis due to conflicting affidavit evidence regarding the parties' ability to co-parent.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' 14-year-old daughter and an order terminating the respondent father's access, alongside resolution of outstanding equalization and child support issues.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the protracted high-conflict relationship, the father's lack of parenting skills, and the child's justified fear and refusal to see him.

The court rejected the father's allegations of parental alienation, awarding sole custody to the mother with no access to the father.

The court also ordered the father to pay an equalization payment of $38,095.88, retroactive child support and section 7 arrears of $16,618.12, and ongoing monthly support.

The respondent mother brought a motion to strike the applicant father's pleadings or suspend the trial due to his failure to comply with a temporary order requiring him to pay child support, spousal support, and interim disbursements.

The father, who resides in Egypt, had accumulated over $58,000 in arrears and made no payments.

The court found the father's non-compliance to be willful and deliberate, noting he had been imputed an income of $250,000.

The court ordered the trial adjourned until the father demonstrates substantial compliance with the temporary order, and directed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to provide an updated Voice of the Child Report regarding access.

This is a status review application by the Children’s Aid Society seeking a custody order for three children in favour of their maternal grandmother, with access to the mother at the grandmother's sole discretion.

The mother sought the children's return under a voluntary service agreement or supervision order.

The court found the children remained in need of protection due to the mother's pattern of engaging in violent relationships, domestic violence occurring in front of the children, and drug use.

The court dismissed the mother's plan and granted custody to the maternal grandmother, finding it to be in the children's best interests, emphasizing stability, safety, and the grandmother's ability to meet their needs.

The father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' three-year-old son to the United Kingdom.

The mother admitted to wrongfully removing the child to Canada but opposed his return, arguing that returning him would expose him to a grave risk of harm due to the father's alleged domestic violence, pursuant to Article 13(b).

The court reviewed the evidence of past violence and involvement of child protection authorities in the UK, concluding that the mother failed to establish that the alleged violence was severe, likely to recur, or life-threatening.

The court ordered the child's return to the UK.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a child support order, seeking to retroactively vary arrears and ongoing support for his 21-year-old daughter.

He argued that new evidence regarding Metis Nation educational funding was available and that she was no longer a child of the marriage.

The court declined to go behind previous appellate orders regarding the funding.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the daughter's enrollment in a new post-secondary program in London, Ontario, but concluded she remained a child of the marriage.

The father was ordered to continue paying the previously fixed guideline support of $641.19 per month until the completion of her program.

This is a further endorsement on a motion for approval of the settlements of tort and accident benefit claims for a minor who sustained catastrophic injuries.

The court expressed concerns regarding proposed payments from the minor's settlement funds to her father for debts and home improvements, citing insufficient evidence and potential conflict of interest.

The court also reviewed the requested legal fees, reducing the contingency fee for the accident benefits claim from 30% to 15% to ensure fairness and reasonableness.

The proposed settlement was not approved as submitted, but the court outlined specific terms under which a revised settlement would be approved, prioritizing the minor's best interests.

The defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim brought by a parent and a minor child against a child protection agency, its employees, and a school vice-principal.

The parent alleged negligence relating to the apprehension of the child, the child’s placement in foster care, and school disciplinary decisions.

The court held that child protection agencies and their staff owe a duty of care to the child, not to the parent, relying primarily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v. B.D., and found that the parent’s pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court also found statutory immunity under the Child and Family Services Act was not displaced due to the absence of pleaded particulars of bad faith.

The parent’s claim was struck without leave to amend, while the minor’s claim was stayed pending appointment of a litigation guardian represented by counsel.

The applicant sought temporary child support and contribution to section 7 expenses, while the respondent sought parenting-related relief including a 50/50 parenting schedule.

The court considered whether income should be imputed to the respondent, who reported no current income while serving as CEO of a biotechnology company without salary.

Applying s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court determined that despite the absence of reported income, the respondent maintained a high standard of living and income should therefore be imputed based on his expenses.

Income was imputed at $123,000 annually and guideline child support was ordered accordingly.

The court declined to order contribution to section 7 expenses due to insufficient evidence and maintained the existing parenting schedule pending further discussion at a settlement conference.

In a family law trial regarding equalization, the respondent husband sought to exclude $219,000 from his net family property, claiming it was traceable to inheritances and gifts.

The court found the respondent failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to trace the funds into his shareholder loan or subsequent investment accounts.

The court also determined the date of marriage value of the respondent's 20% interest in the family business was zero, rejecting the respondent's proposed expert evidence due to lack of independence and insufficient data.

A divorce judgment was granted.

Following a family law mobility trial where the applicant father was successful in having the children reside primarily with him, he sought costs of $77,664.53 based on an offer to settle.

The respondent mother, who had limited financial means, argued for no costs or a nominal amount.

The court declined to apply the strict costs consequences of the offer to settle, noting the difficult nature of mobility cases and the reasonableness of both parties' positions.

Considering the respondent's modest means and the costs she would incur to exercise access, the court fixed costs at $15,000 payable to the applicant.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection.

The older child had disclosed physical abuse by the mother, which was corroborated by medical evidence and a criminal conviction.

The mother denied the abuse and exhibited concerning behaviour during access visits, including speaking a language the child did not understand and disparaging the foster parents.

A parenting capacity assessment concluded the mother was at high risk for physical abusiveness and lacked empathy.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the need for protection.

The older child was made a Crown ward, and the younger child was placed in the custody of her father via a deemed custody order, with supervised access for the mother.

On a family law motion concerning a trust fund established by prior consent order to secure child support, the moving party sought release of the full $200,000 trust balance to himself.

The court found persistent non-payment of child support and section 7 expenses, extensive evidence of undisclosed capital resources, and repeated misrepresentations affecting credibility.

Income was imputed to the moving party, arrears were quantified, and the court assessed ongoing and future support obligations against the trust’s intended protective purpose.

Applying the Family Law Act support principles and the terms of the prior order, the court directed that the full trust balance with accrued interest be paid to the responding party for child support purposes.

All other relief was dismissed, with costs submissions to follow.