Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The Applicant sought the return of the children to Singapore pursuant to the Hague Convention, arguing Singapore was their habitual residence.

The Respondent contended the children's habitual residence was Ontario, asserting the move to Singapore was temporary for family support during pregnancy.

The court applied the hybrid approach to habitual residence, considering all circumstances including parental intentions and the children's connections.

The court found that the parties' intention was always to return to Canada, supported by evidence such as storage of belongings and daycare registrations.

The Hague application was dismissed, and the Ontario court was found to have jurisdiction over custody and access, as the children were habitually resident in Canada.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) brought a motion to be appointed to represent the child A.C. in a child protection proceeding concerning her twin brother, J.C. The biological parents, D.C. and N.C., opposed the motion, arguing they could adequately advocate for A.C. The court granted the OCL's motion, emphasizing A.C.'s right to independent legal representation under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The court found that A.C.'s interests, particularly regarding sibling access with J.C. and her communication difficulties, necessitated independent counsel, as the parents' advocacy, however well-intentioned, could not substitute for the child's own voice, especially where their interests might diverge.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order finding the respondent in contempt of a previous final order that required her to provide vacant possession of a property.

The court found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the respondent was in contempt, having satisfied the three elements for contempt: a clear order, the respondent's knowledge of it, and her intentional failure to comply without a legitimate excuse.

The court noted the respondent's history of non-compliance and attempts to relitigate past issues.

Sentencing for the contempt was adjourned to allow the respondent a final opportunity to rectify her non-compliance.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The applicant wife brought a motion to dispense with the respondent husband's consent to sell the matrimonial home and for partition and sale, arguing the husband was unreasonably obstructing the sale.

The husband opposed, wishing to purchase the property himself or sell it for a higher value.

The court found the husband's reasons for opposing the sale were speculative and not legitimate, noting the ongoing erosion of equity due to carrying costs financed by a joint line of credit.

The court granted the wife sole authority to proceed with the sale, negotiate offers within 5% of the listing price, and complete the closing without the husband's consent, dismissing his opposition.

This endorsement concerns a costs award following two motions heard on March 30, 2023.

The applicant mother's motion for financial disclosure was largely granted, while the respondent father's motion for extended parenting time and questioning was granted in relatively small part.

The court found the mother to be more successful overall and awarded her costs, taking into account settlement offers from both parties.

The father was ordered to pay the mother $12,000 in costs.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking a preservation of assets order, a preservation of documents order, and an order to assign carriage and control of a condominium unit to her for purchase and appraisal.

The preservation of documents order was granted mutually by consent.

However, the preservation of assets order and the condominium order were denied due to the applicant's failure to provide a statutory basis, financial statements, a Net Family Property Statement, or any calculation of an alleged equalization payment.

The court found the applicant failed to meet the onus to demonstrate a likely equalization payment.

The motion was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs to the respondent.

The applicant father brought a motion for increased parenting time with the parties' 7-year-old child pending a 21-day trial.

The father sought equal time or, alternatively, an additional evening.

A section 30 assessment report raised concerns about the mother's ability to support the child's relationship with the father and noted the child's clear alignment with the mother.

The court found that leaving the status quo in place pending trial would jeopardize the child's relationship with the father.

The court granted the motion in part, awarding the father additional overnights but declining to order equal time on an interim basis.

The respondent husband brought an interim motion to stay or reduce his $13,000 monthly spousal support obligation and stay enforcement of arrears pending the hearing of his motion to change.

The husband argued his income had significantly decreased due to selling his business following a cancer diagnosis.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the husband established a prima facie material change in circumstances, he failed to demonstrate hardship as he could pay support from his investments, and he came to court with unclean hands due to his deliberate prior non-compliance with the support order.

The applicant step-father brought a motion seeking contact and parenting time with his 5-year-old step-child after the respondent mother unilaterally terminated contact for nine months.

The mother argued that as a non-parent, the applicant had no presumptive right to access and that resumed contact would negatively affect her mental health.

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated a settled intention to treat the child as his own and had been authentically involved in parenting.

The court ordered the resumption of contact, emphasizing that a biological parent cannot arbitrarily deprive a child of a committed step-parent relationship.

The moving party brought a motion for a temporary reduction of his spousal support obligation pending a full hearing on his Motion to Change, citing his medical release from the military and reliance on pension income.

The responding party brought a cross-motion for financial disclosure.

Applying the test for interim variation, the court found the moving party failed to establish urgency or hardship, and noted his failure to provide accurate and ongoing financial disclosure.

The motion for a temporary reduction in support was dismissed, and both parties were ordered to provide updated financial disclosure.

The applicant sought to terminate or reduce spousal support, arguing his early retirement constituted a material change in circumstances.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought an increase in support.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that an event known and intended at the time of the original support order, such as early retirement, cannot later be relied upon as a material change.

The court emphasized that a support payor cannot voluntarily reduce their income to avoid spousal support obligations, and the focus remains on their income-earning ability.

The applicant, a dependent spouse residing in a long-term care facility, brought a motion for directions and preservation orders against her deceased husband's estate and its beneficiaries.

The deceased had previously severed the joint tenancy of their matrimonial home using a Power of Attorney, sold the home, and transferred funds to himself and his niece (the Estate Trustee).

The court ordered the Estate Trustee to provide an informal accounting of the deceased's management of the applicant's property, her own management of the deceased's property, and her actions as Estate Trustee.

The court also granted an injunction preventing the dissipation of estate assets and ordered the beneficiaries to pay into court any monies received from the deceased or his estate.

The court addressed whether an application should proceed where counsel for one respondent had only recently been retained after issuance of a Legal Aid certificate and other respondent counsel were also new to the file.

The court held that proceeding without allowing time for counsel to investigate and define the respondent's position would be unfair and would expose the matter to a likely appeal.

An adjournment was therefore granted and the matter was rescheduled.

On a motion to change a prior final family order, the court found a material change in circumstances for both children under s. 17 of the Divorce Act.

The evidence established serious communication failures, repeated breaches of court orders, interference with the mother’s relationship with one child, and denial or minimization by the father of the other child’s ADHD and treatment needs.

Joint custody was rejected under the governing communication principles, sole custody of both children was granted to the mother, and the father was subjected to a temporary no-contact regime outside counselling pending review.

The father’s claim for retroactive and immediate child support adjustment was refused for lack of entitlement and insufficient financial evidence.

On a motion for summary judgment in a family property dispute between former common law partners, the moving party argued that Quebec, not Ontario, had jurisdiction.

Applying the real and substantial connection framework and forum non conveniens principles, the court found the parties had been ordinarily resident in Quebec during the relationship, but that property in Ontario supplied a sufficient connecting factor for Ontario jurisdiction.

The court further held Ontario was the convenient forum because the litigation had already advanced there, there were assets in Ontario, and restarting in Quebec would impose considerable cost.

The motion was dismissed and the proceeding was ordered to continue in Ontario.

The applicant moved for judgment for unpaid severance payments required by a consent family law final order, and for a charge on the matrimonial home to secure support arrears, severance payments, and unpaid costs.

The court held that the severance payments were intended as a vehicle for interim support and were to continue until the corporate employer ceased operations, which occurred later than originally contemplated.

Judgment for $24,000 was granted against the respondent personally, and a charge of $40,570 was imposed on the matrimonial home under s. 34 of the Family Law Act.

The respondent's cross-motion concerning an alleged CRA-related indemnity debt was adjourned to permit a final opportunity to provide proper documentary proof.

The applicant, as the successful party, received costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

This was a family law costs decision following a motion for temporary child and spousal support.

The court reviewed issue-by-issue success, the parties' offers to settle, the reasonableness of their litigation conduct, and the cost-effectiveness of the work performed under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

Allegations of bad faith were rejected because they depended on credibility findings that could not be made on conflicting affidavit evidence.

Although the respondent enjoyed marginally greater success on some substantive issues, the motion was reasonably necessary and the applicant was awarded fixed costs of $15,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant brought a family law motion to strike one respondent's Answer and Counterpetition based on persistent non-compliance with court orders, longstanding child support arrears, failure to pay prior costs, and incomplete financial disclosure.

The court held that striking pleadings in a family case is reserved for exceptional circumstances where no other remedy would suffice, and found that threshold met.

The responding party was given a fair opportunity to respond but failed to provide admissible evidence explaining his conduct.

The court struck the pleadings, imposed the consequences under Rule 1(8.4), and awarded the applicant $8,000 in full indemnity costs.

Following a scheduled review of custody and access arrangements in a high‑conflict family law matter, the court considered updated evidence including affidavits, a clinical investigator’s report from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, and counselling records.

The court addressed preliminary issues including whether unpaid costs should bar a party from further participation and whether privileged interview notes obtained inadvertently should be returned and destroyed.

Assessing the best interests of the children, the court found significant evidence of parental alienation by the respondent affecting the youngest child’s perceptions of the applicant.

The court determined that maintaining the existing shared arrangement risked further damage to the child’s relationship with the applicant.

Custody was therefore confirmed with the applicant, with the youngest child ordered to primarily reside with the applicant and the respondent receiving alternate‑weekend access.

A family law trial concerning custody, access, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property following the breakdown of a marriage.

The court considered claims for spousal support, valuation of a closely held HVAC corporation, alleged debts incurred through promissory notes, and alleged concealed income.

Spousal support was denied as the claimant failed to establish economic disadvantage or need.

The court ordered joint custody with primary residence with the mother and a structured access schedule for the father.

Child support was recalculated based on imputed income including undeclared cash income, and an equalization payment was ordered.