Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The applicant husband sought to bifurcate family law proceedings, separating professional liability claims (breach of fiduciary duty and intentional infliction of mental distress arising from a prior psychotherapist-patient relationship) from matrimonial claims (divorce, support, and equalization).

The respondent wife opposed bifurcation, arguing the claims were inextricably linked as part of a continuous pattern of coercive control.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that hearing the matters together was more just, efficient, expeditious, and proportionate, particularly given the respondent's intention to testify about the entire relationship in the family law proceeding and the absence of any benefit from a stepwise approach.

The plaintiff, Lynn Sraha-Yeboah, brought claims against Gregory Jewell and Matthew Jewell for intrusion upon seclusion, alleging that they conducted audio and video surveillance of her in a jointly owned home, including through hidden cameras.

The defendants moved for summary dismissal, relying primarily on a mutual release signed between Lynn and Gregory.

The court found that the release could not bar claims arising from breaches of solicitor-client privilege that occurred during its negotiation, nor could it benefit Matthew, who was not a party to the release.

The court also rejected arguments that Lynn had no reasonable expectation of privacy, that her damages were too remote, and that her claims were barred by estoppel or abuse of process.

The motions for summary judgment were dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

This high-conflict family law trial addressed decision-making, parenting time, child support, equalization, and spousal support following the separation of the parties.

The court considered the children's views, ordered joint decision-making, and established a flexible parenting schedule.

It imputed income to the mother for support calculations, determined an equalization payment owed by the father, and awarded compensatory and needs-based spousal support to the mother for a defined duration.

The decision also reconciled significant post-separation financial adjustments and arrears.

This was a child protection status review hearing under the Child, Youth, and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA) concerning the child LCT.

The Applicant Agency and the Respondent Mother asserted that protection concerns no longer existed, while the Respondent Father maintained they did.

The parties sought a deemed custody order, with the Agency proposing joint custody, the father seeking sole custody and primary residence to him, and the mother seeking sole custody and primary residence to her.

The court found that the child was no longer in need of protection and granted sole custody and primary residence to the mother, with regular scheduled access to the father.

The court found the father's and paternal grandmother's evidence self-serving and unreliable, noting the paternal grandmother's "invisible litigant" behaviour and its negative impact on the child's relationship with the mother.

The defendant, Denise Lee Downing, brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the civil action initiated by the plaintiffs, Bernard Sparr and D’Vine Estates Sarl.

The plaintiffs' action sought substantial damages, alleging economic harm due to the defendant's false testimony in a prior family law proceeding.

The court found that the plaintiffs' civil action was an indirect attempt to re-litigate issues already decided in the family court, where the plaintiff Sparr had previously appealed unsuccessfully and had been declared a vexatious litigant.

The court concluded that the action constituted an abuse of process and granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The Applicant sought an adjournment of a Trial Scheduling Conference (TSC) and leave for a second Settlement Conference, citing outstanding disclosure and the need for expert reports.

The Respondent opposed, seeking dismissal of the Applicant's requests, costs, and orders regarding travel consent and in-person questioning.

The court dismissed both the Applicant's and Respondent's 14B motions, emphasizing the parties' history of non-compliance with court orders and the Family Law Rules.

The TSC was ordered to proceed as scheduled, and no costs were awarded due to both parties' conduct.

This is Part II of a trial decision addressing ongoing child and spousal support, and the future of frozen embryos.

The court declined jurisdiction over the frozen embryos located in Massachusetts.

On spousal support, the court found no entitlement for the mother, imputing her income to a full-time equivalent, as her reduced work schedule was not justified by the children's needs or her health.

The court also determined child support obligations based on the parties' imputed incomes and shared parenting arrangements, including proportionate sharing of special and extraordinary expenses.

A divorce was granted.

This trial addressed outstanding issues of child and spousal support following the resolution of parenting and property disputes.

The court determined the applicant's income for support purposes, rejecting his proposed lower figure and "top-up" mechanism, and imputed income to the respondent.

The court ordered ongoing child and spousal support payments based on the determined incomes, with spousal support set between the mid and high range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The decision also calculated and ordered a significant retroactive support payment, and mandated future reviews of support.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a 2011 final order, seeking to vary ongoing child support and retroactively reduce or eliminate child support arrears and section 7 expense contributions.

The applicant mother opposed the motion.

The court applied the framework from Colucci v. Colucci, finding that while the father's mental health constituted a material change in circumstances, he failed to provide effective notice of his income changes.

The court declined to retroactively reduce arrears prior to the formal notice date (May 2021) due to the father's delay, conduct, and the children's ongoing need for support.

Ongoing child support was varied from the formal notice date based on the father's current income, but the significant arrears accumulated prior to May 2021 were not reduced or rescinded.

The parties brought competing motions in a high-conflict family law proceeding.

Both parties filed voluminous materials that failed to comply with the prevailing Notice to the Profession regarding page limits.

The court narrowed the issues to three urgent matters: the release of funds held in trust from the sale of the matrimonial home, the reinstatement of a parenting coach, and the enrollment of the children in therapy.

The court ordered a partial release of funds with a $150,000 holdback to protect equalization claims, reinstated the parenting coach, and permitted the applicant to enroll the children in therapy.

No costs were awarded due to both parties' non-compliance with the Rules.

The parties separated after a seven-year marriage.

The father sought joint decision-making and shared parenting time, while the mother sought sole decision-making and reduced parenting time for the father.

The court awarded joint decision-making, finding the mother could not be trusted with sole authority due to her history of restricting the father's access.

The child's primary residence remained with the mother.

The court imputed the self-employed father's income at $82,500 for child support purposes, rejecting his declared income due to unsubstantiated business deductions.

The father was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $146,104.18.

The mother was found entitled to non-compensatory spousal support, but no amount was awarded as priority was given to child support.

The applicant father sought an equal time parenting order for the parties' three children.

The respondent mother opposed overnight parenting time, citing concerns about the father's mental health and a history of family violence.

The court declined to order a week-on/week-off schedule, finding it not in the children's best interests given the lack of recent overnight time and the young age of one child.

Instead, the court ordered a step-up parenting schedule, delaying overnight time until both parties provided medical letters addressing mental health and substance use.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion to compel the respondent to cooperate in filing corporate tax returns pursuant to a 2019 order, and the dismissal of the respondent's cross-motions.

The court found the applicant's motion was necessary due to the respondent's delays and failure to clarify her position.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $8,475 inclusive of HST.

In an uncontested family law trial, the applicant wife sought retroactive child support, retroactive and ongoing spousal support, and an equalization payment.

The parties were married for 22 years and had four children.

The respondent husband failed to provide financial disclosure, ignored previous court orders, and did not pay support despite significant post-separation increases in his income.

The court ordered the husband to pay $45,707.33 in retroactive child support, $71,322.02 in retroactive spousal support, and an equalization payment of $268,160.

The court further ordered that these amounts be satisfied by a direct rollover from the husband's Bell Canada pension into a separate pension plan for the wife.

The mother brought a motion to adjourn the family law trial for a year, citing a disability and arguing the court had a duty to accommodate her under human rights legislation.

The father opposed the lengthy adjournment and brought a motion to unseal an incomplete Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) report.

The court found the mother's medical evidence insufficient to justify a year-long adjournment and noted her failure to specify required accommodations.

However, the court adjourned the trial to the fall sittings due to overall lack of trial readiness.

The father's unsealing motion was adjourned, the mother's request for child counsel was dismissed, and the father's request for police enforcement of parenting time was dismissed without prejudice.

The applicant brought a motion to incorporate and enforce the terms of interim and final family arbitration awards.

The respondent, who was self-represented, requested an adjournment which was denied.

The court granted the motion, incorporating the arbitration awards into a court order and directing the respondent to comply within ten days.

The court also dispensed with the respondent's consent for the release of funds held in an Australian bank and ordered the respondent to provide disclosure regarding the sale of the former matrimonial home.

The applicant brought a motion for a final order noting the respondent in default and seeking relief on parenting, child support, and property division.

The respondent had failed to comply with previous orders to file materials.

The court refused to grant further extensions and proceeded with the motion.

The court made a temporary order for unsupervised access, ordered the respondent to pay retroactive and ongoing child support in accordance with the Guidelines (rejecting his unpled undue hardship claim), enforced a trust agreement regarding the sale proceeds of their home, and ordered the respondent to reimburse the applicant for half of the payments she made on a joint loan.

The applicant was awarded $20,000 in costs.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support.

The parties were unmarried but shared a child and had cohabited, meeting the definition of 'spouse' under the Family Law Act.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie case for needs-based support due to a significant income disparity and her role as primary caregiver.

The respondent was ordered to pay interim spousal support of $741 per month, representing the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, along with retroactive arrears.

The applicant sought interim orders permitting relocation of the child from Richmond Hill to Guelph, along with custody, schooling, and support orders.

The court applied the best interests test under the Children’s Law Reform Act and the framework from Gordon v. Goertz.

Finding compelling interim circumstances, including housing instability and financial advantages of the move, the court permitted the relocation and determined the disruption to the child and the respondent’s parenting time would be minimal.

Requests for interim child support and section 7 contributions were adjourned due to incomplete financial disclosure.

The court emphasized that interim mobility orders require compelling circumstances but may be granted where the child’s best interests clearly favour the move.

Following a multi-day family law trial involving claims for divorce, equalization of net family property, spousal support, and unjust enrichment relating to improvements made to farm property owned by the wife's grandparents, the court determined costs.

The applicant had succeeded in obtaining a $50,000 judgment for unjust enrichment against the grandparents, while the respondent spouse obtained an equalization award exceeding $41,000 and dismissal of other claims occurred.

The court analyzed competing offers to settle under Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules and considered the relative success of the parties and the reasonableness of their settlement positions.

Although success was divided, the court found the applicant overall more successful, particularly on the unjust enrichment claim.

Costs were awarded to the applicant in a reduced and proportional amount.