Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion in a status review application regarding two children who had been placed with their maternal grandparents.

The Society sought a final custody order for the grandparents, a continuation of a restraining order prohibiting the parents from contacting the children, and an order denying parental access.

The parents opposed the motion, arguing that access and their involvement in monitoring the grandparents' care should be determined at trial.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the mother's ongoing conflictual behaviour and the parents' lack of insight as established by a recent parenting capacity assessment.

Summary judgment was granted, placing the children in the grandparents' custody and denying the parents access.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 1996 child support order, seeking retroactive child support, ongoing support for an adult child in full-time studies, and contribution to section 7 expenses.

The respondent had failed to provide income disclosure for several years and had received a grievance settlement after his employment was terminated.

The court ordered ongoing child support, fixed arrears at $12,500.40 retroactive to 2006 (including the grievance settlement in his income), ordered contribution to section 7 expenses, and required the respondent to maintain life insurance.

The applicant was awarded $10,000 in costs due to the respondent's failure to make timely financial disclosure.

Following interim motions where the respondent was largely successful in obtaining spousal and child support, the court determined costs.

Both parties were penalized for unreasonable behaviour: the respondent for failing to provide timely educational disclosure for an adult child, and the applicant for unilaterally removing the respondent from his benefits plan.

The applicant was ordered to pay net costs of $4,000.

The court also ordered the respondent to provide ongoing educational disclosure for the children as a condition of receiving child support.

The party seeking costs was largely successful in setting aside notices of garnishment issued for child support and section 7 expenses.

He sought costs of $9,568.74 on a full-indemnity basis, while the opposing party argued for no costs or a maximum of $350.

The court noted that both parties lost focus on proportionality, expending time and effort disproportionate to the issues at stake.

Finding the opposing party's conduct unreasonable but not rising to bad faith, the court awarded fixed costs of $2,500.

The parties separated following a trip to Jamaica in December 2010, during which the applicant alleged the respondent attempted to kill her by slashing her throat, while the respondent alleged the applicant attacked him with a knife.

The respondent was acquitted in a Jamaican criminal trial.

In this family law trial, the court could not determine on a balance of probabilities who attacked whom.

Given the extreme conflict, the court awarded sole custody to the applicant but ordered increasing, unsupervised access for the respondent, culminating in a week-about shared parenting schedule.

The court also addressed child support, found the applicant in contempt for denying telephone access, and ruled that the applicant's family cottage qualified as a matrimonial home.

On competing interim motions in a parenting dispute involving an 11-month-old child, the court applied the best interests of the child as the governing consideration.

The father sought joint custody, a defined access schedule, child support terms, and financial disclosure; the mother sought dismissal of that motion, interim custody, and restrictions on access being exercised in Ottawa.

The court granted the mother interim custody and principal residence, ordered a staged access regime for the father that balanced breastfeeding and the need to foster a meaningful father-child relationship, fixed interim child support at $181 per month retroactive to September 1, 2014, and compelled disclosure from the mother.

Success was divided and no costs were awarded.

Following a five-day family law trial where the respondent was entirely successful, both parties sought costs.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $38,551.38, relying on a settlement offer that was significantly more favourable to the applicant than the trial judgment.

The court found that while the offer expired one day before trial and did not trigger the strict consequences of Rule 18(14), it remained a significant factor under Rule 24.

The court awarded the respondent $30,000 in costs, approaching full indemnity, after deducting fees for senior counsel's passive attendance at trial.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a 2007 child support order, seeking to reduce his monthly payments and rescind accumulated arrears of approximately $20,000.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the applicant's worsening financial situation and tax debts.

The court imputed an income of $21,000 based on minimum wage, reducing ongoing child support to $320 per month.

The court also retroactively reduced the arrears by $6,720 for the past two years, fixing the remaining arrears at $13,272.43 to be paid at $85 per month.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary child support for three adult children attending post-secondary education, a preservation order, and a pension valuation.

The respondent brought a counter-motion to dismiss the applicant's equalization claim on the basis that the six-year limitation period had expired.

The court found that the adult children, despite delayed educational paths due to learning disabilities and family issues, remained children of the marriage and ordered temporary section 7 support.

The court dismissed the respondent's counter-motion, extending the limitation period for equalization because the applicant's delay was in good faith and the respondent suffered no substantial prejudice.

A preservation order over the respondent's RRSPs was granted due to a strong risk of asset depletion, but the request for a pension valuation was dismissed.

Both parties sought costs following a motion and cross-motion regarding disclosure and the pre-trial sale of properties, both of which were dismissed.

The applicant sought costs based on the respondent's misleading statements in a previous affidavit regarding the purchase of a property.

The court found that the respondent's conduct in delivering a misleading affidavit warranted an adverse costs award, but reduced the amount due to the applicant's own unreasonable conduct in refusing a settlement offer.

The applicant was awarded $1,000 in costs.

The parties submitted Minutes of Settlement seeking a Consent Order that included terms for secondary arbitration (parenting coordination) for future disputes.

The court raised several questions regarding whether the proposed terms complied with the mandatory requirements for secondary arbitration under the Family Law Act and the Arbitration Act, 1991, such as the qualifications of the arbitrator and the delegation of choosing the arbitrator.

The court deferred granting the consent order pending further submissions or redrafted Minutes from counsel.

The applicant sought enforcement of an unpaid net family property equalization payment by obtaining control over the sale of the respondent's home.

The respondent sought an adjournment and relied in part on a pending WSIB claim, while the record also disclosed ongoing child support arrears owed by the applicant.

The court denied the adjournment, confirmed the applicant's entitlement to recover the equalization payment, and ordered an expedited sale process with specified appraisal, listing, access, vacancy, carrying-cost, and trust terms.

The judge remained seized to supervise implementation and any further issues arising from the sale.

In a high-conflict family motion concerning a child's vaccination, the court held that a prior consent custody term prohibiting vaccination until age 12 did not bind the court where the child's best interests required a fresh assessment.

The court declined to involve the child directly, finding that parental conflict had already placed the child in the middle of the dispute and that her views could not be reasonably ascertained without harm.

Applying the law on expert admissibility, the court rejected the anti-vaccination opinion evidence tendered on behalf of the mother and accepted the infectious disease evidence filed through the amicus.

The court found that vaccination for measles, mumps, and rubella was in the child's best interests and gave the father authority to make that medical decision before the planned travel.

In a child protection proceeding, the incarcerated father's lawyer obtained a production order from the criminal court to have the father transported to family court for a routine appearance.

The family court convened a conference to address the process, finding that the order was improperly obtained without notice, was procedurally defective, and caused unnecessary logistical and security issues.

The court emphasized that prisoner production to family court is not an entitlement for routine appearances and must satisfy the necessity test under Family Law Rule 23(10).

In a family property dispute arising from unmarried cohabitation, the applicant sought compensation for labour and monetary contributions to three properties held solely in the respondent's name.

The court found the parties separated in December 2011, so the unjust enrichment claim was not statute-barred under the ordinary two-year limitation period running from separation.

Applying the unjust enrichment framework and the joint family venture approach, the court held the respondent retained a disproportionate share of equity generated through the parties' combined efforts and expenditures.

A proprietary remedy was unnecessary because a monetary award was adequate.

Judgment issued for $20,000 plus pre-judgment interest at 3% from January 1, 2012.

The applicant sought an equalization of net family property following the parties' separation.

The court found that the respondent had intentionally depleted family assets, failed to provide financial disclosure, and acted in bad faith by incurring reckless debts.

Applying section 5(6) of the Family Law Act, the court ordered an unequal division of net family property, vesting the matrimonial home entirely in the applicant and ordering the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $184,702.70.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and a deemed custody order placing the child with her paternal aunt and uncle.

The child had been apprehended due to medical and developmental concerns, and the parents' failure to follow medical advice.

The parents opposed the motion.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the child's dramatic improvement in kinship care, the parents' failure to participate in a court-ordered parenting capacity assessment, and the mother's lack of contact with the child for nearly a year.

The court granted summary judgment, found the child in need of protection, and ordered deemed custody to the aunt and uncle with reasonable access for the parents.

The applicant father brought a motion to suspend enforcement, terminate child support for his adult daughter, retroactively vary support for his two sons during periods of unemployment, and eliminate arrears.

The respondent mother did not attend or file evidence.

The court reduced the applicant's arrears due to 14.5 months of involuntary unemployment and terminated support for the adult daughter effective December 31, 2014.

The court imputed income to the respondent mother due to non-disclosure and ordered the applicant to pay his 50% share of the daughter's section 7 education expenses.

The applicant's request to automatically terminate support for the sons upon turning 18 was dismissed.

Costs of $7,500 were awarded to the applicant, to be set off against the remaining arrears.

The defendant Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a motion to strike the plaintiff mother's claim against it for negligent investigation.

The mother alleged the investigation was negligent due to a failure to provide French language translation services.

The court applied the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Syl Apps, holding that a Children's Aid Society owes its duty to the children and owes no duty of care to the parents during an investigation.

The mother's personal claim against the Society was struck without leave to amend, though the children's claims remain.

Following a motion where the moving party successfully had the responding party's pleadings regarding child and spousal support struck, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party sought $3,239.09 in costs, while the responding party made no submissions.

The court found the moving party was entitled to costs as the successful party and because the motion was necessitated by the responding party's disregard for court directives.

Costs were fixed at $2,500.