Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

In an uncontested trial following the striking of the respondent's pleadings, the applicant sought child support for her nephew, for whom she is the primary caregiver.

The court imputed income to the respondent at a minimum wage level from 2024 onward, finding he failed to provide adequate income disclosure, was likely surreptitiously employed while receiving Ontario Works, and provided no medical or educational reason for under-employment.

The respondent was ordered to pay $11,088.63 in retroactive support, ongoing monthly support of $281.54, and $14,690 in enhanced costs due to his unreasonable conduct.

An urgent motion by the father for the return of a seven-year-old child who had been withheld by the mother for 18 days in breach of a final parenting order.

The mother had a lengthy history of disobeying parenting orders, including prior withholding of the child for extended periods, resulting in a contempt finding and financial penalties.

The mother's justifications for the withholding were financial in nature and unrelated to the child's best interests.

During the motion, the mother agreed to return the child.

The court granted an interim variation of the final order, imposing supervised parenting time on the mother for three months at a supervised parenting centre.

The court found the mother's conduct constituted bad faith breach of the court order and awarded full indemnity costs of $8,900 against the mother.

The applicant, claiming to be a common-law spouse, sought to prove the deceased's will in solemn form and obtain dependant's support.

The respondent, the Estate Trustee and sole beneficiary, brought a motion for vacant possession of the condominium where the applicant resided and to strike the applicant's will challenge for lack of standing.

The court granted the applicant interim possession of the condominium on terms (requiring him to pay all maintenance, insurance, and property taxes) until his dependant's support application is resolved.

However, the court dismissed the applicant's challenge to the will, finding he lacked the necessary financial interest or standing, as his potential dependant's support claim would not be affected by the will's validity.

The Applicant (Mother) sought orders for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, dispensing with the Respondent's (Father's) consent for the sale process, and vacant possession.

The Respondent consented to the sale and vacating but opposed dispensing with his consent, arguing for repairs and a say in the process.

The court found the Respondent unreasonably withheld consent given his lack of cooperation, financial non-contribution to the home, and precarious financial situation.

The court granted the Applicant's requests, ordering the sale, vacant possession, and dispensing with the Respondent's consent for the sale process.

Net proceeds are to be held in trust, and parties are directed to mediation for distribution.

This decision addresses multiple motions in a contentious family law dispute marked by the respondent husband's persistent non-compliance with financial disclosure and preservation orders.

The husband sought to vary existing preservation orders, obtain updated financial statements from the applicant wife, and release funds from a Receiver.

The wife sought orders compelling the husband's compliance with prior orders, the release of funds for property expenses, and further disclosure.

The court dismissed the husband's motion in its entirety, citing his long history of deliberate disregard for court orders, including unauthorized asset transfers and a lack of complete financial transparency.

The court granted the wife's urgent motion, ordering the husband to remit proceeds from an undisclosed property sale to the Receiver and directing the Receiver to obtain the relevant legal file.

Additionally, the court ordered the release of $180,000 from the Receiver's trust to the wife for the payment of outstanding expenses related to the matrimonial home and other jointly-owned properties.

The applicant mother sought a motion to change a 2010 final order regarding child support, seeking a new order for retroactive and ongoing child support.

The respondent father sought a retroactive downward adjustment of arrears based on his actual income and a reduction of arrears due to alleged uncredited garnishments, also claiming inability to pay ongoing support.

The court granted the retroactive downward adjustment of child support for 2010-2021 based on the father's actual income, which the mother agreed to.

However, the court found the Family Responsibility Office's (FRO) statement of arrears accurate regarding data entry issues.

The issues of further adjustment for alleged uncredited garnishments and ongoing child support were adjourned for a further hearing, with a temporary order for $100/month ongoing support and $50/month arrears payments continuing.

The court issued a costs endorsement following two motions where success was roughly evenly divided between the applicant mother and the respondent father.

The mother succeeded on joint decision-making responsibility with final say and child support for her older son, but not on primary residence for the child T. The father succeeded on an equal shared parenting regime but not on sole decision-making.

Neither party acted in bad faith.

Despite the mother's more reasonable offers to settle, they did not warrant special costs consequences.

The court ordered each party to bear their own costs, finding this to be the most fair, just, and reasonable decision given the balanced outcomes and the objective of encouraging settlement.

The court also addressed two remaining issues: child support for T. (including section 7 expenses) and holiday parenting time, remaining seized of these matters.

The applicant father sought unsupervised parenting time, while the respondent mother sought a forensic psychiatric assessment of the father, supervised parenting time, and a restraining order.

The father's motion was adjourned due to non-compliance with procedural requirements.

The mother's request for a restraining order was dismissed as the court found no reasonable grounds to fear for her safety or the children's safety, noting the dated nature of the allegations and lack of recent concerning conduct.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking temporary sole decision-making responsibility for the child's education and health, and primary residence in India, varying a previous order.

The respondent mother opposed and implicitly sought the child's return to Canada, but did not bring a formal motion for this relief.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the child's relocation and inability to attend school.

Applying the test from Thomas v Wohleber, the court granted the father temporary sole decision-making authority for education and health, and primary parenting time in India, finding it to be in the child's best interests to ensure continued schooling and access to counselling.

The court retained jurisdiction as the child's habitual residence had not changed.

The applicant father brought a motion for the sale of a jointly owned rental property.

The respondent mother agreed to the sale but insisted it be sold privately to her mother, without a formal offer or specific price, arguing it would save real estate commission.

The court found no malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct by the applicant in seeking an open market sale.

Conversely, the respondent's demand to sell only to her mother was deemed oppressive.

The court also addressed the respondent's failure to attend the motion, affirming its duty to proceed justly.

The motion was granted, and the court ordered the rental property to be listed for sale on the open market with specific terms for realtor selection and cooperation.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final parenting order to permit her to relocate with the parties' two children from Toronto to Niagara-on-the-Lake, and to grant her sole decision-making and primary residence.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought primary residence if the mother moved.

The court found the proposed move constituted a 'relocation' under the amended Divorce Act and would significantly impact the children's relationship with the father.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court denied the relocation, finding the move was primarily for the benefit of the mother's new husband and would negatively impact the children's strong relationship with their father and grandparents.

However, finding a material change in circumstances due to the parties' inability to co-parent, the court terminated joint decision-making, allocating medical/dental/mental health decisions to the mother and education/extra-curricular decisions to the father, and eliminated mid-week overnight swaps.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for an equal shared parenting schedule and an order restricting the child's residence to within 20 km of the matrimonial home, after the respondent mother unilaterally moved with the child to Toronto.

The court found the father's evidence more credible, noting that the mother had misled her own witnesses regarding her support for shared parenting.

Applying the newly amended Divorce Act provisions on best interests and relocation, the court held that the mother's unilateral self-help measures were inappropriate and that an equal shared parenting arrangement was in the child's best interests.

The court ordered a 2-2-3 rotating schedule and required the mother to relocate the child's residence to within 35 km of the matrimonial home.

The plaintiff commenced a divorce proceeding and a separate civil tort action against the defendant spouse, alleging assault and negligence.

The defendant moved to strike or stay the civil action as an abuse of process, arguing it improperly circumvented the family law regime.

The court declined to strike the entire civil action, finding it is not prima facie an abuse of process to commence a separate tort proceeding.

However, the court struck certain improperly pleaded claims, struck the jury notice, and ordered joint case management of both proceedings to avoid duplication and ensure judicial efficiency.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place a four-year-old child in extended society care without access for the purpose of adoption.

The parents opposed the motion, proposing alternative plans of care.

The court applied the principles of summary judgment in the child protection context and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court determined that the parents' plans were not viable due to a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and failure to utilize offered resources.

The court granted the society's motion, ordering extended care without parental access, but allowed access for the child's half-sister.

The applicant and respondent separated in 2014 and have twin boys.

The applicant sought retroactive and ongoing child support, arguing the respondent was intentionally underemployed, and requested contribution to the children's rep hockey expenses under section 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court imputed income to the respondent for 2016 and 2019, finding he was intentionally unemployed in 2016 to assist a new partner.

The court ordered the respondent to pay child support arrears, ongoing support, and a capped contribution to the children's rep hockey expenses, balancing the children's interests with the respondent's modest means.

In an uncontested family law trial, the applicant sought sole custody, child and spousal support, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent did not appear.

The court granted the applicant sole custody, imputed the respondent's income based on a past tax assessment, and ordered child and spousal support.

The court declined to order exclusive possession of the matrimonial home but ordered its sale, dispensing with the respondent's consent.

The applicant's request for an unequal division of net family property was dismissed due to insufficient evidence, with leave to file further evidence.

The mother sought sole custody, child support, and imputation of income against the father, who claimed to be a 'sovereign' and disputed the court's jurisdiction.

The father refused to participate meaningfully in the proceedings or provide financial disclosure.

The court granted the mother sole custody, noting the child's special needs and the father's sporadic, disruptive involvement.

The father was granted supervised access subject to strict conditions.

Due to his failure to provide income information, the court imputed the father's income at $250,000 based on his business interests and a previous child support order, ordering him to pay ongoing and retroactive child support.

The applicant son sought a declaration of beneficial ownership in his mother's residential property based on proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment, claiming he made financial and physical contributions to the property over decades.

The court found significant credibility issues with all parties.

The court held that the son did not establish the elements of proprietary estoppel, as his evidence regarding his expectation of an interest in the property was inconsistent and any alleged promise was for an inheritance, not a present interest.

The court also dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding that the son did not confer a net benefit on his mother, as the value of his rent-free accommodation far exceeded any financial contributions he made.

The application was dismissed with no costs awarded due to the unreasonable conduct of all parties.

Following a motion regarding parenting time for an infant child, the court determined costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The moving party father had sought a rapid progression to a 50/50 access schedule, while the responding mother sought a gradual increase in parenting time.

The court found the mother was largely successful on the motion because the ordered access schedule closely resembled her proposal.

Considering the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct, the complexity of the matter, and proportionality, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful party.

In a family property trial arising from a short second marriage, the court addressed equalization and the applicant's claimed interest in a jointly held matrimonial home.

The central dispute concerned large insurance and sale proceeds received by the applicant shortly before marriage, most of which were unexplained by valuation day.

Applying the unconscionability analysis under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act, the court imputed $96,000 in cash assets to the applicant, adjusted the valuation approach to the matrimonial home, and reduced the amount otherwise payable to her.

The respondent was ordered to pay $27,011 within 45 days to satisfy the applicant's interest, failing which the home would be sold, and the respondent received $5,000 in partial indemnity costs.