Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The applicant brought a motion seeking production of the respondent’s income tax returns and notices of assessment, adjustment of child support, and contributions to extended health coverage for the parties’ children.

The court found that the motion was procedurally improper under the Family Law Rules and should have been brought as a motion to change a final order under Rule 15.

Although the applicant was initially unaware of the procedural error, the respondent’s counsel warned her that continuing the motion would result in a request for dismissal and costs.

The matter was ultimately resolved outside the court proceedings and the parties agreed the motion should be dismissed.

The court ordered the applicant to pay modest costs reflecting the respondent’s attendance and preparation.

The parties separated in 2006 and shared parenting of their 10-year-old child.

After the mother planned to relocate, the father obtained an interim without prejudice order for week-on/week-off shared custody and prohibiting the child's relocation.

The mother subsequently brought a motion to vary the interim order to implement the access recommendations of a newly released Office of the Children's Lawyer report, which recommended primary residence with the mother.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the OCL report did not mandate immediate action and that maintaining the existing week-on/week-off arrangement provided stability and was in the child's best interests pending trial.

Following dismissal of a grandparent access application on summary judgment, the court determined costs.

The successful respondents had served an offer to settle inviting the applicant to withdraw the application and agree to mutual non‑disparagement with each party bearing their own costs.

The offer was not accepted and the application was dismissed in its entirety.

Applying the usual Rule 49 cost consequences, the court held the respondents were entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The court fixed all-inclusive costs at $7,500 payable by the applicant.

The child protection agency sought a temporary order under s. 51 of the Child and Family Services Act continuing a previous without‑prejudice order placing three children primarily in the mother’s care with supervision and access arrangements involving the father.

The court reviewed evidence of family conflict, the son’s aggressive behaviour, and parental challenges including mental health concerns and emotional volatility.

Applying the statutory principles of best interests of the child, preservation of family integrity, and the least disruptive course of action, the court determined different interim arrangements for each child.

The son and older daughter were placed with the mother subject to supervision and access to the father, while the youngest daughter was ordered to reside with both parents on an alternating schedule under supervision.

The Family Law Act custody motion was stayed pending the child protection proceeding.

Following several complex family law motions concerning support issues, the court was required to determine the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought $45,000 plus additional preparation costs, asserting complete success and unreasonable conduct by the respondent.

The respondent argued the applicant achieved only partial success and that significant reductions to child and spousal support constituted substantial success for him.

Applying the flexible approach to costs under r. 24 of the Family Law Rules and emphasizing proportionality and reasonable expectations, the court found the applicant was mostly successful but that the amount claimed was excessive.

The court awarded $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office as expenses related to support.

The respondent opposed a motion by the payor parent seeking termination of child support obligations for adult children pursuing post-secondary education.

The court considered whether an employment severance payment should be included in the payor’s income for child support purposes and whether new academic evidence concerning one child’s post-secondary progress should be admitted.

The court held that severance payments functioning as income replacement are properly included in income for child support calculations.

Support for one child was ordered to continue temporarily until a fixed termination date to allow completion of studies, while support for another child continued because the evidentiary record regarding post-secondary plans was incomplete.

Retroactive section 7 expense contributions were also ordered and a nominal costs award was granted.

In a family law proceeding where the parties sought to incorporate Minutes of Settlement into a final order, the issue arose whether a police enforcement clause should be included to enforce custody and access provisions.

The court reviewed the statutory authority under s. 36 of the Children’s Law Reform Act and extensive jurisprudence concerning police enforcement of parenting orders.

It held that such clauses are a remedy of last resort intended for immediate or specific risks such as unlawful withholding or abduction, not as an open‑ended mechanism for anticipated future non‑compliance.

The court emphasized the potential psychological harm to children and the improper delegation of sensitive parenting disputes to police.

The proposed police enforcement clause was rejected and the remaining terms of the settlement were incorporated into the order.

In matrimonial litigation following a long marriage, multiple motions arose after the husband assigned himself into bankruptcy while substantial support and equalization issues remained unresolved.

The wife sought consolidation of related corporate litigation concerning ownership of a property, annulment of the husband's bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and related relief.

The court found significant overlap between the corporate property dispute and the matrimonial proceedings and ordered consolidation.

While the court expressed serious concerns about the husband's credibility and the bona fides of the bankruptcy, it declined to annul the bankruptcy due to evidentiary gaps but lifted the statutory stay to permit the matrimonial action to proceed to an expedited trial.

The husband's motions to vary spousal support and to sever the divorce from corollary relief were dismissed.

The moving party sought a reduction of substantial spousal support arrears and a decrease in ongoing support obligations following a long-term marriage.

He relied on fluctuating income, health issues, and employment changes as a material change in circumstances and proposed reduced arrears and lower monthly support.

The responding party opposed the motion, citing the moving party’s history of non-disclosure, failure to comply with court orders including life insurance and medical coverage, and prior unsuccessful variation attempts.

The court found no material change in circumstances and determined that rescinding arrears would be unjust given the moving party’s repeated non‑compliance.

The motion to reduce arrears and ongoing support was dismissed.

Following a family law trial addressing child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property, the court considered costs submissions after the release of the judgment.

Success on the substantive issues was divided, but the court found the respondent had failed to provide adequate financial disclosure and evidence necessary to properly litigate the equalization issues.

The court accepted that the respondent was self‑represented and receiving Ontario Works, but determined that some costs should nonetheless be awarded.

The applicant’s claimed legal fees and disbursements were substantially reduced.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded in light of the respondent’s disclosure failures and the mixed success on the substantive issues.

Following an urgent family law motion in which the applicant successfully obtained an order requiring the respondent to release the child for return to the United Kingdom pursuant to an earlier court endorsement, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, alleging the respondent acted in bad faith by refusing to comply with the prior order.

The court held that although the respondent intentionally breached the earlier endorsement, the breach was motivated by the child’s stated wish not to return to the United Kingdom and did not constitute bad faith.

Applying the factors under Rule 24(11), the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful applicant.

In a child protection proceeding, the child protection agency brought motions seeking disclosure of police occurrence reports relating to both parents and an order for a parenting assessment under s. 54 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The parents consented to limited disclosure of records but opposed broader disclosure and objected to a parenting assessment before a care and custody hearing.

The court reviewed the statutory framework governing assessments and the criteria under Ontario Regulation 25/07.

Given the history of domestic violence, lack of cooperation with child protection authorities, and concerns regarding parenting insight and the children’s best interests, the court held that both the records disclosure and parenting assessment were necessary.

The motions were granted.

The applicant brought an application under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002 seeking spousal support from a former common-law partner residing in Ontario while she resided in British Columbia.

The parties disputed key facts including the duration of the relationship, the date of separation, and whether the applicant suffered economic disadvantage arising from the relationship.

The applicant relied on outdated materials, limited medical evidence, and a Divorcemate calculation but provided little evidence addressing entitlement or the compensatory basis for support.

The court found the evidentiary record insufficient to establish entitlement, quantum, or duration of spousal support.

The application was dismissed without prejudice to the applicant bringing a new claim with proper evidence.

Competing applications were brought under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 for guardianship of the person and property of an incapable adult with cerebral palsy and significant cognitive impairment.

The niece sought appointment as guardian while the incapable person’s sister filed a competing application.

Although both parties had historically assisted with the incapable person’s care and finances, the court found the relationship between the parties had irreparably broken down.

Evidence showed the respondent’s husband had engaged in sexual contact with the incapable person and the respondent attempted to conceal the incident.

The court held that this circumstance made the respondent unsuitable as guardian and that the applicant represented the reasonable alternative in the incapable person’s best interests.

In a family law motion to change child support and determine section 7 expenses following a consent order, the court addressed disputes regarding the children’s primary residence, retroactive table support, and responsibility for extraordinary expenses.

The evidence established that one child primarily resided with the applicant for several months, another alternated between residences and other locations before ultimately residing with the respondent, and the youngest child remained with the respondent.

The court adjusted historical and ongoing child support obligations accordingly, including partial support for a child attending university and a formula for post-secondary expenses requiring each parent and the child to contribute one-third after deducting scholarships or grants.

Claims for private school tuition were rejected as neither necessary nor reasonable in light of the parties’ means, though limited childcare and extracurricular contributions were ordered.

Arrears and future obligations were set out and enforced through the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant father brought an emergency motion seeking the immediate return of a one‑year‑old child from Alberta to Ontario, exclusive care and control of the child, and police enforcement under the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The child had travelled to Alberta with the respondent mother for a six‑week visit but remained there after the mother decided to relocate.

Although the court found the father had not consented to a permanent relocation and that the child’s habitual residence was originally Ontario, the father waited approximately eight months before bringing a motion to compel the child’s return.

The court held that the father’s delay constituted acquiescence, allowing a new status quo to develop in Alberta where the child had lived for most of her life.

Applying the best interests of the child and status quo principles, the court declined to disrupt the child’s settled circumstances.

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking retroactive variation of child support, payment of section 7 expenses, termination of spousal support, and changes to custody and access including a week‑on/week‑off regime and decision‑making authority over daycare and education.

The respondent brought a cross‑motion seeking sole custody or, alternatively, final decision‑making authority over daycare and education, variation of child support, and clarification of section 7 expense contributions.

The court determined that the applicant did not meet the 40% threshold required for a shared custody set‑off under s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and ordered table child support payable by the applicant.

The court accepted the respondent’s expert accounting evidence regarding income and rejected the applicant’s expert report as unreliable.

Joint custody and the existing parenting schedule were maintained, with after‑school care to occur at home with a nanny.

The plaintiff sued his former family lawyer and the lawyer’s firm for negligence arising from advice and drafting of a separation agreement that waived spousal support.

The plaintiff argued that the agreement was vulnerable to challenge and that counsel failed to adequately advise him of the risks and should have ceased acting once the agreement was attacked in subsequent litigation.

The court held that the lawyer met the heightened standard of care applicable to a family law specialist, having properly explained the risks and drafted a robust spousal support waiver.

The court also found no breach in continuing the retainer and concluded that causation and damages were not established, including under a lost‑chance analysis.

The action was dismissed.

Following separation and a prior custody order granting joint custody with the children residing with the mother, the applicant sought current and retroactive child support while the respondent sought changes to access arrangements.

The existing order had suspended child support due to the significant travel required for access after the mother relocated with the children.

The court held that travel expenses for access do not replace the obligation to pay child support and that reasonable arrangements for child support must be ensured under the Divorce Act.

The respondent was ordered to begin paying guideline child support based on his income and to pay retroactive support from the date the application was commenced.

The court otherwise largely upheld the existing access structure, making only a minor order regarding the children’s communication device.

The parties separated in 2001 due to the respondent's alcoholism but maintained contact and engaged in numerous activities together between 2003 and 2009.

The applicant sought a valuation date of February 26, 2009, while the respondent argued for June 1, 2001.

The court applied the Molodowich factors and found that the parties had resumed cohabitation between 2003 and 2009, despite maintaining separate residences.

The court determined the valuation date for equalization of net family property to be February 26, 2009, as there was no reasonable prospect of the resumption of cohabitation after that date.