Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

Following a multi‑day family trial, the court determined custody, child support, and equalization of property between separated spouses.

The applicant alleged parental alienation and sought sole or joint custody, while the respondent sought continuation of an interim order granting her sole custody.

The court found no evidence that the respondent obstructed the applicant’s relationship with the children and accepted recommendations from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to maintain sole custody with defined access.

For child support purposes, the court imputed additional income to the applicant due to undeclared cash and in‑kind payments and set support under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

On property division, the court determined that a cottage held in the respondent’s name was held in trust for her parents and excluded it from net family property, resulting in an equalization payment owed by the respondent to the applicant.

In a matrimonial proceeding involving ownership of a cottage property, the moving parties sought to add Legal Aid Ontario as a party because it had registered liens against the property to secure legal aid services provided to one spouse.

The court considered the test under Rule 7(5) of the Family Law Rules for adding a party.

It held that a person will generally only be added if they are a necessary party and if an order can be made for or against them, although the court retains a narrow discretion to add parties without a legal interest in exceptional circumstances.

Because no order could be made for or against Legal Aid Ontario, it had no involvement in the underlying matrimonial dispute, and no unusual or egregious circumstances existed, the court declined to add it as a party.

The moving party brought a motion to vary an order requiring payment of $800 per month in spousal support to the former spouse, alleging an inability to pay due to reduced business income and financial shortfall.

The responding party disputed the alleged decline in income and pointed to employment income, corporate income, and rental income.

The court held that the moving party failed to establish a material change in circumstances since the original order.

Evidence showed the moving party’s income had actually increased due to teaching income and anticipated rental income.

The court emphasized that a motion to vary cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal and dismissed the motion.

The applicant brought an application under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act seeking to have her former spouse declared a vexatious litigant and to obtain a restraining order.

The evidence demonstrated nearly two decades of repetitive and unsuccessful litigation, including attempts to relitigate issues already decided, interfere with corporate affairs, and pursue proceedings without reasonable grounds.

The court reviewed the governing principles for declaring a litigant vexatious and concluded that the respondent’s persistent litigation, failure to comply with court orders, and improper use of proceedings constituted abuse of process.

The court declared the respondent a vexatious litigant and prohibited him from commencing or continuing proceedings without leave, and also granted a restraining order prohibiting contact with the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion to confirm the terms of a final order arising from handwritten Minutes of Settlement reached on the first day of a scheduled family law trial.

The parties disagreed on the interpretation and wording of several provisions relating to support, corporate liabilities, parenting arrangements, insurance obligations, and arrears.

The court analyzed the handwritten Minutes of Settlement and competing draft orders filed by the parties to determine the parties’ true agreement.

The court largely adopted the respondent’s draft wording for several provisions where it clarified procedural or operational details, but otherwise enforced the original handwritten terms.

The court also ordered the applicant to pay $12,000 based on the parties’ shared assumption during negotiations that such payment had been made.

A spouse without legal title sought an interlocutory injunction restraining mortgagees from exercising power of sale over Muskoka properties alleged to constitute a matrimonial home.

The mortgagees relied on a statutory declaration by the titled spouse asserting that another property had been designated as the matrimonial home under s. 21(3)(d) of the Family Law Act.

The court found strong evidence capable of belief that the lender had actual or constructive notice that the property was used as a family cottage and therefore a matrimonial home.

The presumption in s. 21(3)(d) could not protect a lender who knew facts inconsistent with the declaration.

Applying the three-part injunctive test, the court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to the spouse, and a balance of convenience favouring preservation of the property pending trial.

The applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement following a 26‑year marriage, alleging non‑disclosure, misrepresentation of property value, unconscionability, and undue influence under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

The court found both parties had similar information about the value of a jointly owned cottage and that there was no failure of financial disclosure, misrepresentation, or undue influence sufficient to invalidate the agreement.

The property division provisions were found to be broadly consistent with the statutory equalization regime and were upheld.

However, the spousal support provision providing $443 monthly for only 18 months failed to meet the objectives of the Divorce Act in a long‑term traditional marriage with ongoing caregiving responsibilities.

The court ordered ongoing spousal support consistent with the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and required life insurance security while support remained payable.

In a family trial addressing support and equalization, the court finalized an earlier interim judgment after receiving further evidence on valuation-day net family property calculations.

The court accepted the moving party’s revised RRSP valuation and explanation for prior inconsistent financial statements, and accepted the responding party’s stated separation-date debts and liabilities.

Using those accepted figures, the court recalculated net family property and fixed a higher equalization payment than in the interim order.

The court made final orders for ongoing monthly spousal support, annual reciprocal income disclosure, retroactive support, and the recalculated equalization payment.

Following the breakdown of a long-term traditional marriage, the court determined issues relating to child support, extraordinary expenses for adult dependent children attending university, spousal support, arrears, and related financial obligations.

The respondent’s income was accepted at $90,000 and child support was ordered based on the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court rejected allegations of deliberate underemployment and imputed income of $10,000 to the applicant due to limited efforts toward self‑sufficiency.

Spousal support was ordered at the midpoint of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range on an indefinite basis subject to review.

The court also fixed child and spousal support arrears, allocated post-secondary expenses proportionally, and ordered life insurance and financial disclosure.

The father brought a motion to change seeking unsupervised access and a finding of contempt against the mother for allegedly failing to facilitate supervised access ordered on an interim basis.

The court held that contempt was not established because the evidentiary record did not demonstrate deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court emphasized that custodial parents have a positive obligation to encourage access and criticized conduct that left the burden of persuading the child to attend visits on the supervisor.

The mother’s motion to vary the order to make the child’s attendance entirely voluntary was dismissed, while the existing order requiring supervised visits remained in force.

The court also authorized electronic communication between the father and the children subject to preservation and disclosure of the messages to the access supervisor.

The applicant child protection agency brought a summary judgment motion seeking a Crown wardship order without access for the purpose of adoption.

The respondents each filed plans of care proposing that the child be placed in their respective care under supervision.

The court found overwhelming evidence of the mother’s long-standing inability to parent, including prior Crown wardship orders for other children and expert evidence regarding cognitive limitations.

The father’s proposed plan of care was also rejected due to significant mental health issues, criminal history, substance use, lack of cooperation with the agency, and failure to recognize the child’s developmental delays.

The court held that the respondents failed to raise any genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary judgment making the child a Crown ward without access.

The plaintiff sued her former spouse alleging that he fraudulently misappropriated life insurance proceeds payable to her following the death of their child in a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant had deposited both insurance cheques into the parties’ joint bank account and used the funds for joint expenses and investments while the plaintiff was hospitalized.

The court found the plaintiff to be an unreliable witness and accepted the defendant’s evidence that the funds were used with the plaintiff’s knowledge and consent.

The court further held that the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act and that a broad mutual release contained in the parties’ separation agreement extinguished any such claims.

The action and the defendant’s counterclaim were dismissed.

The mother applied for sole custody of the parties' two children, retroactive child support, and retroactive spousal support.

The father also sought sole custody, arguing the mother relied too heavily on his parents for childcare.

The court found the mother had been the primary caregiver and had adequate parenting skills, while the father had a history of domestic violence and had underpaid child support.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, but allowed the father unsupervised access, finding his recreational marijuana use did not pose a risk to the children.

The father was ordered to pay retroactive child support of $6,053.00 and a lump sum retroactive spousal support payment of $7,500.00.

The parties separated after an eight-year marriage.

The applicant sought a divorce, equalization of net family property, and retroactive and ongoing child support.

The respondent claimed he met the 40% shared custody threshold under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines and sought retroactive child support from the applicant.

The court found the respondent did not meet the 40% threshold, as school time is not excluded from the calculation.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $17,813 in retroactive child support and section 7 expenses, and $162 per month in ongoing support.

The court also valued the applicant's financial planning business and ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $62,308.69.

The moving party sought summary judgment requiring a pension plan administrator to pay her a pre‑retirement death benefit under a federally regulated pension plan following the death of her former spouse.

The claim relied on a separation agreement stating that she would receive survivor benefits from the pension.

The court considered whether s. 25(4) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act permitted assignment of a pre‑retirement death benefit to a former spouse and whether the language of the parties’ separation agreement and related documents constituted an effective assignment.

Although the court held that the statute permits assignment of such benefits, it concluded the wording of the separation agreement and related direction did not clearly and unambiguously effect an assignment.

The statutory priority of the surviving spouse therefore prevailed and the death benefit was payable to the deceased member’s later spouse.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the respondent for failing to comply with a prior disclosure order in a family law proceeding.

The court found that the motion for contempt was improperly brought because it was not commenced using the required Form 31 and therefore the procedural requirements for contempt had not been met.

While the respondent had only substantially complied with the disclosure order after being served with the motion, the court declined to make a contempt finding.

Instead, the court directed the respondent to respond to outstanding disclosure requests within thirty days in accordance with the prior order and clarified further steps available if disclosure was not provided.

The motion for contempt was dismissed and other disclosure and financial issues were adjourned.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for a temporary care and custody order for two children, while the mother brought a cross-motion for their immediate return.

The mother had a history of mental health issues and was recently arrested for breaching a probation order.

She had recently entered into a Community Treatment Order.

The court found that the mother's mental health needed to stabilize before the children could be returned.

The Society's motion was granted, placing the children in interim care for three months, and the mother's motion was dismissed.

In a high-conflict custody trial between a mother and paternal grandparents, the court held that the children's best interests required their immediate removal from the grandparents' primary care and placement in the mother's sole custody.

The court found the grandparents had systematically interfered with and undermined the mother-child relationship, fostering irrational fear and unhealthy attachment dynamics in the children.

A jointly retained psychiatrist's opinion recommending removal from the grandparents' influence was accepted, while the respondents' critique evidence was rejected as unhelpful.

The father, who was recovering from addiction and unable to assume parenting responsibility, received supervised access.

The grandparents' claim for child support was reserved.

Following the breakdown of a marriage with one child, the parties sought determinations regarding child support, spousal support, and income imputation.

The applicant argued that the respondent was intentionally underemployed and requested that income be imputed for the purpose of calculating child support, while the respondent sought spousal support.

The court found that the respondent had made genuine and extensive efforts to obtain employment and was not intentionally underemployed, declining to impute income.

The court ordered the respondent to pay child support based on her actual income and found that she had established entitlement to spousal support based on economic interdependency and need following the marriage breakdown.

Ongoing spousal support was ordered on an indefinite basis, subject to review upon a material change in circumstances.

A surviving spouse sought an advance equalization payment of $4.5 million from the estate of her deceased husband under the Family Law Act or, alternatively, partial summary judgment.

The motion was opposed by several defendants asserting potential claims against the estate and challenging their standing and the appropriateness of the advance.

The court held that the equalization entitlement between spouses is personal under the Family Law Act and that the defendants were neither proven creditors nor beneficiaries.

Applying the three-part test for advance equalization payments from Laamanen v. Laamanen, the court found a reasonable need for litigation funding, little doubt of entitlement to at least the requested amount, and that granting the advance was just in the circumstances.