Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The applicant brother brought an application to be appointed as the sole guardian of property and personal care for his sister, who has significant cognitive and developmental limitations.

The respondent mother and sister brought a counter-application seeking joint guardianship.

The court found the sister incapable of managing property and personal care.

After reviewing the history of care and the conduct of the parties, the court dismissed the applicant's application and appointed the mother and sister as joint guardians, finding it was in the incapable person's best interests to remain in the care of her mother with a transition plan to her sister.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that the child be made a Crown ward with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The child had been apprehended after suffering severe injuries while in the mother's care, leading to the mother pleading guilty to aggravated assault.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the mother's inability to safely parent and the child's need for permanency.

The motion was granted, and the child was made a Crown ward with no access.

The Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for Crown wardship without access for six children.

The children had been apprehended multiple times due to the mother's historic drug use, exposure to domestic violence, and deplorable housing conditions.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing she had a new stable relationship and a supervisory job.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the mother failed to demonstrate she had addressed the issues that led to the children's apprehension.

The court granted summary judgment, making all six children Crown wards without access to facilitate adoption.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding temporary care of their children, spousal support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The father sought an equal shared parenting schedule to align with his shift work, while the mother sought temporary spousal support and exclusive possession of the home.

The court dismissed both motions, maintaining the status quo of the children residing primarily with the mother for five out of eight nights.

The court also declined to award spousal support due to minimal income disparity and dismissed the request for exclusive possession as the father had voluntarily vacated the home without disturbing the mother's possession.

The applicant father sought unsupervised access and joint custody of his young son.

The respondent mother opposed, citing fears for her safety and alleging the father had anger and alcohol issues, and requested continued supervised access.

After a lengthy trial reviewing the parties' tumultuous relationship and the father's successful supervised visits, the court found no evidence the father posed a danger to the child.

The court ordered joint custody with divided final decision-making authority, a progressive schedule for unsupervised access, and mandated the use of Our Family Wizard for communication.

The mother appealed an Ontario Court of Justice order granting custody of her 6-year-old child to the father and paternal grandparents.

The mother argued the trial judge erred by denying adjournments, misapprehending evidence of sexual abuse allegations, and granting custody to non-parties without mandatory police checks.

The Superior Court found no error in denying the adjournments or assessing the abuse allegations.

However, the court held the trial judge erred in law by granting custody to the grandparents without compliance with the Children's Law Reform Act and without sufficient evidence of the father's parenting plan.

The appeal was allowed, and the court ordered the filing of fresh evidence to determine the child's best interests.

The Children's Aid Society brought a status review application seeking to terminate its supervision order over a young child.

Both parents agreed to the termination but disputed the subsequent custody and access arrangement under section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The mother sought primary care or joint custody with primary residence, while the father sought sole or joint custody with primary residence.

The court considered the child's best interests, noting the parents' high conflict, the father's pending deportation proceedings, and the child's positive development under the existing shared parenting arrangement.

The court ordered joint legal custody with primary residence to the mother, maintaining the child's attendance at an Ontario school, and granted the mother a restraining order against the father.

The father brought a motion to change a 2006 final order to terminate his child support obligations for his two adult children.

The mother opposed the termination for one child and sought reimbursement for extraordinary expenses and spousal support.

The court found that both children were no longer dependents under the Family Law Act, as they had completed their initial post-secondary education or were no longer enrolled full-time.

The mother's claims for extraordinary expenses were dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction for non-dependents, insufficient evidence, and the father's overpayment of child support.

The spousal support claim was also dismissed as it was not properly pleaded, delayed, and lacked merit on compensatory or need-based grounds.

The father's motion to terminate child support was granted.

The father appealed a settlement conference order regarding custody and access, arguing he did not understand the agreement, was under duress, and the judge was biased.

The court rejected the claims of duress and bias but found that the order terminated certain access provisions from a previous order that were not discussed or agreed upon by the parties.

Because the order did not accurately reflect the parties' agreement and resulted in unintended changes to access, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to a different judge.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings and for security for costs due to his failure to comply with multiple temporary orders regarding spousal support, costs, and financial disclosure.

The court held that leave was not required to bring the motion despite the case being listed for trial, as the motion sought to enforce compliance essential to a fair trial.

The court ordered the respondent to comply with specific disclosure and payment obligations within 21 days, failing which his pleadings would be struck.

The court also granted the applicant a $50,000 security interest in the respondent's property for costs.

The parties separated after a 22-year common law relationship.

The applicant sought retroactive and ongoing spousal support.

The respondent opposed, arguing the applicant was self-sufficient and had been terminated from her employment for cause.

The court found the applicant entitled to support given the length of the relationship and the income disparity.

However, because the applicant was terminated for cause, the court imputed income to her for a period equivalent to what her reasonable notice period would have been.

Spousal support was ordered based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, adjusted for the imputed income.

The applicant father sought joint custody and a shared parenting regime, while the respondent mother sought sole custody and to maintain the status quo access arrangement.

The court found that despite some conflict, the parents could communicate effectively and put the children's interests first.

Joint custody and a week-about shared parenting schedule were ordered.

The court also ordered ongoing child and spousal support, finding the mother was not intentionally underemployed, but denied her claim for retroactive spousal support.

Following a family law trial where both parties were self-represented, the applicant sought costs of $85,000 while the respondent proposed paying $4,833.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party and had behaved reasonably, whereas the respondent's behavior was unreasonable.

Applying the test from Fong v. Chan, the court determined the applicant was entitled to a moderate allowance for the opportunity cost of her time spent preparing for and conducting the trial.

The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $20,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' six-year-old child and restricted access for the respondent father, arguing that his acquired brain injury and past conduct posed safety risks.

The parties had previously executed a separation agreement providing for joint custody.

The Superior Court of Justice found no material change in circumstances to justify altering the joint custody arrangement, noting the mother had contrived conflict and unjustifiably restricted the father's access.

The court upheld joint custody, expanded the father's access schedule to alternating weekends and shared holidays, and ordered the father to repay funds he had misappropriated from the child's education account.

The father brought an urgent motion to prevent the mother from relocating with their two daughters to the Ottawa area.

The mother sought to rescind a previous order prohibiting the move and ordering an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) update.

The court found that a material change in circumstances had occurred since the last custody order, including the mother's undisclosed autoimmune illness and the special needs of one of the children.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz framework, the court held there was insufficient evidence regarding the proposed new environment to determine the children's best interests.

The court denied the relocation pending a full hearing, confirmed the order for an OCL update, and ordered that if the mother moves, the father shall have immediate custody.

Following a successful motion regarding the children's schooling, child care, and telephone access, the applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity and full indemnity basis.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded or that they should be limited to a partial indemnity basis from the date the amended notice of motion was served.

The court found the applicant was successful and had made an offer to settle that met the requirements of Rule 18(14).

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a substantial indemnity basis from the date the assessor's report was received, fixed at $3,500 plus disbursements and HST.

The moving party father brought a motion to change child support, section 7 expenses, private school tuition obligations, spousal support arrears enforcement, and access travel costs.

The court declined to impute income to the father, setting ongoing child support based on his actual reduced income.

The court ordered the father to pay his proportionate share of valid section 7 expenses (dental and tutoring) based on historical incomes, but dismissed claims for summer camps and other extracurriculars lacking consent or proof of necessity.

The father's requests to vary his 50% contribution to private school tuition, suspend enforcement of spousal support arrears due to bankruptcy, and share access travel costs were all dismissed.

The moving party (father) brought a motion to change his child support obligations after leaving his full-time employment to pursue a full-time university degree.

The responding party (mother) opposed the motion, arguing he was intentionally under-employed and sought an increase based on his previous earning trajectory.

Applying the Drygala test, the court found the father was intentionally under-employed but that his return to school was required by his reasonable educational needs and would ultimately benefit the child.

However, noting his ability to work part-time and full-time during the summer, the court imputed an annual income of $20,000 and reduced his child support obligation to $172 per month.

A 14-year-old applicant commenced an application for child support against her alleged biological father, seeking private school tuition.

The respondent relied on a 1999 agreement with the applicant's mother settling child support on a final basis.

The parties brought multiple interim motions.

The court ordered that the parties be referred to by initials to protect the respondent's children, required the applicant to appoint a litigation guardian, and ordered the applicant and her mother to attend for questioning.

The court dismissed the applicant's motions for interim disbursements, temporary child support, and summary judgment, finding no immediate need for support and that the enforceability of the 1999 agreement was a genuine issue for trial.

The parties separated in 2005 and have three children whose living arrangements shifted between the parents over several years.

The father, who formed a new blended family, failed to pay court-ordered support and accumulated arrears.

The parties attempted to settle the ongoing and retroactive support issues by agreeing to waive child support in exchange for fixed spousal support, but the agreement resulted in adverse tax consequences for the mother.

The court set aside the settlement regarding child support, finding it cannot be bargained away, and ordered retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support based on the parties' actual incomes and the Guidelines.

The father's arrears were converted into a monetary judgment enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.