Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The parties resolved all issues arising from their separation except the allocation of parenting time for their four-year-old child.

The respondent mother sought to maintain the status quo, where the child was returned to her at 8:15 p.m. during the applicant father's parenting time.

The applicant proposed that the child remain overnight, resulting in an equal shared parenting schedule.

The court accepted the applicant's proposal, supported by the Office of the Children's Lawyer, finding that the late-evening transitions unnecessarily disrupted the child's bedtime routine and that equal time with both capable parents was in the child's best interests.

The parties, a former same-sex couple, engaged in a high-conflict parenting trial regarding their child conceived via a sperm donor.

The applicant sought a declaration of sole parentage and primary residence, while the respondent sought a declaration of parentage and primary residence.

The court dismissed the applicant's request for sole parentage, finding pre-conception intent to co-parent and noting the application was brought after the child's first birthday.

Finding the applicant had engaged in a pattern of alienating conduct, the court awarded primary residence to the respondent, shared decision-making with final say to the respondent, and a week-about parenting schedule.

The applicant wife sought an equalization payment following the breakdown of the parties' marriage.

The respondent husband argued that the parties were merely roommates, that a handwritten letter constituted a domestic contract overriding statutory equalization, and that equalizing the pre-marital value of the matrimonial home would be unconscionable.

The court rejected the husband's arguments, finding that the parties were engaged in a valid conjugal relationship until their physical separation in October 2020.

The court ordered the husband to pay the remaining equalization balance of $183,654.72 plus pre-judgment interest.

The respondent brought a motion for the partition and sale of a jointly owned camp property where the applicant had been residing since separation.

The applicant opposed the sale, indicating an intention to amend his pleadings to advance a trust claim based on funds from a prior personal injury settlement used to purchase the property.

The court dismissed the motion as premature, finding that a sale could unfairly prejudice the applicant's equitable claims and leave him without housing before the property issues were fully determined.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated in 2021 and have two children.

The father subsequently experienced homelessness, mental health struggles, and substance abuse issues.

Following a family law trial where the father was self-represented and failed to file materials, the court granted the mother primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility, with supervised parenting time for the father.

The court declined to impute a higher income to the father due to his personal struggles, ordering child support based on social assistance levels, and requested further submissions regarding the mother's constructive trust claim over the family home.

The applicant and intervenors brought motions under rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to strike the respondent's motions to set aside previous final and temporary orders.

The respondent had filed voluminous affidavits containing bald allegations of fraud against the applicants, intervenors, judges, and court staff, and failed to comply with case management orders restricting the length and scope of his materials.

The court found multiple breaches of the case management orders and determined that the respondent's affidavits contained scandalous, vexatious, and inadmissible material.

The court struck the respondent's motions and affidavits and prohibited him from bringing further motions to set aside the orders.

The applicant, who raised the child as his own for the first year of the child's life, sought an urgent interim parenting order after a DNA test revealed he was not the biological father.

The biological mother and the newly identified biological father opposed the applicant having any parenting time, arguing the child should only have two parents.

The court rejected the biological parents' position, finding that the applicant was the child's psychological father and primary caregiver post-separation.

Applying the best interests factors under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court granted the applicant alternating weeks of parenting time.

The applicant father and respondent mother, both self-represented, proceeded to trial to resolve issues of parenting, child support, property equalization, and divorce.

The father sought primary residence and decision-making authority, citing the mother's mental health struggles, alleged substance abuse, and inconsistent exercise of parenting time.

The mother sought a return to a shared parenting schedule but failed to comply with trial management directions or provide medical evidence supporting her capacity.

The court awarded primary residence and decision-making to the father, with a graduated weekend parenting schedule for the mother to slowly reintroduce overnight visits.

The mother was ordered to pay child support based on her ODSP income, while the father's property claim was dismissed after being abandoned at trial.

The moving party father brought a motion to change a final parenting order, and the responding party mother sought to vary the order to permit her to relocate the two children to Dubai.

The parties had a shared parenting arrangement with equal parenting time.

The court found a material change in circumstances but denied the mother's request to relocate the children.

Applying the Barendregt factors and the Divorce Act, the court concluded the mother failed to prove the move was in the children's best interests, noting her true motivation was to end the children's relationship with their father and that she had unduly influenced the children's stated preferences.

The applicant husband and respondent wife built a real estate corporate empire during their marriage.

Following their separation, the wife claimed her mother beneficially owned the subject corporations and relied on a 2007 marriage contract to exclude the assets from net family property.

The court found the husband was the beneficial owner of four of the corporations and a 50% owner of the fifth, determining the mother was merely a nominee.

The court also set aside the marriage contract, finding the parties had abandoned it by mutual agreement in 2008.

The wife's post-separation actions to seize control of the corporations were found to be oppressive under the Business Corporations Act.

The respondent father brought a motion to change seeking to retroactively vary a 2010 child support order and rescind accumulated arrears.

The original order imputed an income of $35,000 to the father due to unemployment.

The father argued that medical issues prevented him from obtaining meaningful employment since 2010.

The court found the medical evidence insufficient and noted the father's lack of effort to find work, concluding there was no material change in circumstances.

The court also declined to rescind the arrears, finding the father had not established a complete inability to pay now or in the future.

The motion to change was dismissed.

The applicant estate trustees applied to pass their accounts.

The respondent beneficiary objected, arguing the trustees breached their fiduciary duties by failing to act with an even hand and depleting the trust capital for the benefit of one beneficiary (the respondent's father) to the detriment of the others.

The court found that the will did not relieve the trustees of their duty to act impartially.

The trustees failed to consider the interests of the other beneficiaries, failed to make necessary inquiries regarding the necessity of the encroachments, and improperly allowed trust capital to be used to satisfy the father's personal child and spousal support obligations.

The application to pass accounts was dismissed, and the trustees were ordered jointly and severally to repay $145,000 to the trust.

The appellants sought to appeal a costs order made by the Ontario Court of Justice in a family law proceeding concerning the relocation and decision-making responsibility of their nephew.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the appellants were required to obtain leave to appeal before filing their appeal, as the appeal was solely regarding costs.

Treating the matter as a motion for leave to appeal, the court denied leave, finding no strong grounds to conclude that the trial judge erred in exercising her discretion to order that each party bear their own costs.

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.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to amend his Response to a Motion to Change to include relief regarding child support and financial disclosure, and to set aside a prior order that allowed the respondent to amend her pleadings.

The court dismissed the motion to amend, finding that the applicant's concerns related to the enforcement of an existing disclosure order, which should be pursued separately under Rules 1(8) and 26 of the Family Law Rules rather than delaying the pending parenting issues.

The court also dismissed the motion to set aside the prior order, concluding that the applicant's inability to file responding materials would not have changed the outcome.

Costs of $2,700 were awarded to the respondent.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of assault, assault with a weapon, and sexual assault against his former stepchildren.

The allegations arose during a highly contentious parenting dispute between the accused and his former spouse over their shared child.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the testimony of the complainants and their mother, concluding that the mother had a strong motive to fabricate the allegations to exclude the accused from their child's life.

The court acquitted the accused on all counts due to the lack of credible and reliable evidence.

Additionally, the court ordered the transcripts and decision to be forwarded to the Children's Aid Society due to evidence that the mother had physically abused the complainants.

The respondent was successful at a Focussed Hearing regarding the validity of a Post Nuptial Agreement and sought full indemnity costs of $144,762.72, including costs for prior steps.

The applicant argued for no costs or reduced costs, and requested a stay of enforcement pending her appeal.

The court declined to award costs for prior conferences, focusing only on the Focussed Hearing.

Finding the respondent's claimed fees on the higher side and no basis for full indemnity, the court awarded the respondent costs of $37,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The court also stayed enforcement of the costs award until the appeal is concluded.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion to prevent the applicant father from relocating the parties' children to Markham and changing their school from Toronto to Markham pending a final determination of her motion to change.

The court found that the proposed move constituted a relocation under the Divorce Act, as the increased commuting distance would significantly impact the children's relationship with the mother.

Applying the best interests factors, the court ordered that the children continue attending their Toronto school to maintain stability and support the existing equal shared parenting schedule, but declined to prohibit the father from moving the children's residence to Markham during his parenting time.

The mother's request for a Voice of the Child Report was dismissed.

The applicant sought to enforce an alleged settlement of all issues arising from competing claims to terminate and retroactively vary spousal support under a prior final order.

The court held no settlement was reached at the settlement conference itself, but found that a binding settlement was concluded through the subsequent exchange of correspondence between counsel when the remaining points of clarification were resolved.

The court held the parties were ad idem on all essential terms and that execution of formal minutes was not a precondition to contract formation.

Judgment was directed to issue in accordance with the draft final order, subject to amendments reflecting the agreed terms.

In an uncontested family hearing after the respondent's pleadings were struck except for the divorce claim, the court addressed equalization, occupation rent, and divorce.

The applicant established that the respondent remained in the matrimonial home after separation, refused to facilitate its sale, failed to comply with disclosure and other court orders, and made no equalization claim.

The court accepted that the applicant had potential entitlement to occupation rent and prior costs, but on the applicant's proposal deemed the parties' net family property equalized with no payment by either side.

The application was amended to include divorce, a divorce was granted, and no further costs were ordered.