Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

In an uncontested family law trial following the striking of the respondent's pleadings, the court addressed claims for support, equalization, unjust enrichment, and the tort of intrusion upon seclusion.

The added parties (the applicant's parents) were awarded a constructive trust and resulting trust over the farm property and matrimonial home due to their financial contributions.

The court imputed income to the respondent due to non-disclosure and ordered retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support at the high end of the SSAG.

The court also found the respondent liable for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion for his malicious campaign of disseminating private family court information, awarding $75,000 in general, aggravated, and punitive damages.

A restraining order and a sealing order were granted to protect the applicant's privacy.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to return to the matrimonial home and for equal parenting time.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion for exclusive possession of the home.

The court found a history of family violence and severe litigation abuse by the respondent, who repeatedly flouted court orders, harassed court staff, and filed meritless motions.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding his proposed plan unrealistic and contrary to the children's best interests.

The court granted the applicant exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and imposed strict case management orders to curb the respondent's abusive litigation conduct.

The applicant father brought a motion to enforce a final order regarding their child's school placement, seeking an order that the child attend Jean Lumb Public School and that he be granted interim final decision-making authority over education.

The respondent mother had unilaterally enrolled the child in a different school without consulting the father or attending mediation, breaching the final order.

The court declined to order a change of school to avoid further disruption to the child, but applied Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to sanction the mother by suspending her final decision-making authority over education pending the hearing of the parties' motions to change.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of his five-year-old daughter, who was unilaterally removed from Morocco to Canada by the respondent mother.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was Morocco and that the father was exercising his custody rights as a legal guardian under Moroccan law.

The mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the return, arguing exceptions under the Hague Convention, including grave risk of harm, the child's objections, and human rights violations.

The court dismissed the exceptions, finding that Moroccan family law prioritizes the best interests of the child and that the mother's allegations of abuse did not meet the high threshold of grave risk.

The court ordered the child's return to Morocco and awarded costs to the father.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated after a high-conflict relationship.

The father sought sole decision-making and primary residence of their three children, while the mother sought joint decision-making and equal parenting time.

The court found both parents fit but noted significant communication issues and conflict.

The court ordered sole decision-making and primary residence to the father for the eldest child, in accordance with the child's wishes.

For the two younger children, the court ordered joint decision-making with the father having final say, and equal week-about parenting time.

The mother was imputed a minimum wage income and ordered to pay retroactive child support, while the father was ordered to pay ongoing set-off child support.

The mother was also ordered to pay an equalization payment to the father.

The applicant mother brought a motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules alleging the respondent father breached a Final Parenting Order regarding joint decision-making, extracurricular activities, and section 7 expenses.

The court found the father deliberately bypassed the mother on dental care, refused to engage on educational decisions, failed to take the child to agreed-upon extracurricular activities, and failed to pay his proportionate share of special expenses.

The court granted the motion and issued a Temporary Order with specific terms to facilitate compliance and directed enforcement of expenses through the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking the recusal of the case management judge, alleging bias and procedural unfairness in previous rulings.

The court reviewed the legal test for a reasonable apprehension of bias and examined the father's specific complaints regarding two prior motions.

The court found that the father failed to present any admissible evidence to rebut the presumption of judicial impartiality, noting that his complaints primarily stemmed from a disagreement with the court's application of the law and procedural rules.

The motion for recusal was dismissed, with the court noting the father's history of bringing recusal motions against approximately 20 other judges.

The moving party (former wife) brought a motion for contempt against the responding party (former husband) for failing to secure his equalization and spousal support obligations via life insurance and his pension, as ordered in 1998 and 2000.

The responding party argued the equalization obligation was extinguished by his 2000 assignment in bankruptcy.

The court found that because the responding party failed to comply with his conditional discharge order and the trustee was discharged in 2005, the bankruptcy stay was lifted and the equalization obligation remained enforceable.

Applying the three-part test for civil contempt, the court found the responding party intentionally breached clear and unequivocal court orders and declared him in contempt, ordering him to secure the obligations within 30 days to purge the contempt prior to a sentencing hearing.

The self-represented appellant father appealed an Ontario Court of Justice trial decision that upheld a separation agreement, granted decision-making responsibility to the respondent mother, and permitted the child's relocation.

The father argued the trial judge erred in her ultimate decision and in proceeding with the trial despite parallel proceedings.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law, fact, or mixed fact and law.

The court held that the trial judge correctly applied the law on duress regarding the separation agreement and properly focused on the child's best interests in the relocation analysis.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary orders, including an order to enroll the parties' two children in their current private school for the upcoming year and requiring the respondent father to pay his proportionate share of the tuition.

The father opposed, arguing the children should attend public school due to long-term affordability concerns.

The court found the father failed to demonstrate compelling circumstances to justify disrupting the children's education pending a final decision.

The court held the tuition was a necessary and reasonable section 7 extraordinary expense and ordered the father to pay 75% of the cost based on the parties' 2024 incomes, subject to future reapportionment.

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion to have the applicant declared a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent relied on the applicant's history of filing police complaints, a dismissed application to set aside a separation agreement, and a dormant Small Claims Court action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant had not persistently instituted vexatious proceedings without reasonable grounds, as the family law claims were resolved and the Small Claims action was not duplicative.

However, the court cautioned the applicant about her out-of-court conduct and declined to award her costs despite her success on the motion, noting her unreasonable behaviour in ignoring a previous costs order.

The appellants, trustees of an estate and related corporations, appealed and sought to set aside an arbitral award granting the respondent $275,000 as an oppression remedy and ordering occupation rent.

The respondent, a 94-year-old widow, had been pushed out of the family business by her late husband and the trustees.

The court dismissed the application to set aside the award, finding no breach of natural justice or procedural fairness under s. 46 of the Arbitration Act.

The court also dismissed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator made no palpable and overriding error in finding oppression and that the equitable remedy awarded was entitled to significant deference.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the parties' five minor children, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The father sought joint decision-making and equal parenting time, or alternatively, reunification therapy.

The court found a long history of severe family violence perpetrated by the father against the mother and children, justifying the children's refusal to see him.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making and primary residence, with parenting time at the children's discretion.

The court imputed an annual income of $74,122 to the father, finding him intentionally unemployed, and ordered him to pay child support, arrears, and an equalization payment of $34,467.

The father's share of the proceeds from the sale of family properties was ordered to be held in trust as security for future child support.

The applicant mother and respondent father, both Swiss citizens, separated in 2022.

The mother sought to maintain primary residence of their three children in Toronto, while the father, who had to return to Switzerland due to immigration issues, sought to relocate the children to his residence in Switzerland.

The mother made numerous unsubstantiated allegations of abuse and misconduct against the father.

The court found that while both parents offered suitable plans, relocating the children to Switzerland would cause significant upheaval and sever their relationship with their older half-sibling.

The court ordered that the children's primary residence remain with the mother in Toronto, but granted the father generous parenting time during summers and holidays, along with regular virtual access.

The court also imputed income to the mother based on regular family gifts, ordered proportional sharing of special expenses, granted the divorce, and awarded $90,000 in costs to the father due to the mother's unreasonable conduct during the litigation.

During a family law trial involving mobility and allegations of family violence, the applicant father sought to introduce evidence regarding a hidden bedroom camera.

He had previously refused to answer questions about the camera during pre-trial questioning, citing an active criminal proceeding for voyeurism.

The respondent mother objected to the evidence as trial by ambush.

The court compared the Family Law Rules with the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting that Family Law Rule 20(20) creates a presumption of admissibility unless harm is demonstrated.

Finding that the mother would suffer prejudice but not sufficient harm to exclude the evidence, the court admitted the testimony.

However, the court ordered the father to pay $2,500 in costs and a $2,500 fine for his strategic failure to correct his refusal prior to trial.

Following a five-day trial, the court determined parenting time and child support for two children.

The mother sought alternating weekends for the father, while the father sought three consecutive weekends.

The court ordered two consecutive weekends with the father during the school year and equal parenting time during the summer, finding this in the children's best interests under s. 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

On child support, the court imputed various unsupported business expenses back into the self-employed father's income under s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, fixing arrears at $34,093.82 and ongoing support at $1,426.34 per month.

Costs of $7,000 were awarded to the mother due to the father's late financial disclosure.

The applicant father brought a Motion to Change a final order regarding child support after the parties' two children moved primarily into his care.

The respondent mother, who is self-employed, failed to pay child support, contribute to section 7 expenses, or provide required financial disclosure.

The court imputed the mother's income at $49,000 based on a vocational assessment and ordered her to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, as well as her proportionate share of section 7 expenses.

The court also ordered the mother to obtain life insurance to secure her support obligations, imposed a $2,000 penalty for her breach of disclosure orders, and awarded the father $14,000 in costs.

The parties separated after a 10-year marriage.

The father sought primary residence of their 8-year-old child, but the parties consented to a shared parenting schedule with the child residing primarily with the mother.

The court awarded the mother sole decision-making responsibility for education, health, and extra-curricular activities due to the father's history of abusive communication and inability to co-parent effectively, while ordering joint decision-making for religion.

The mother was permitted to travel to Pakistan with the child for up to two weeks annually.

The court imputed minimum wage income to the mother for 2023-2025 and ordered the father to pay retroactive child support, section 7 expenses, and spousal support.

The mother was ordered to pay the father an equalization payment of $43,369.74, primarily based on the valuation of land she owned in Pakistan.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.

The parties separated in 2021 and the applicant father sought primary residence of their twin children, child support, and resolution of property issues.

The children's relationship with the respondent mother had deteriorated, leading them to move in with the applicant.

Following a section 30 assessment and considering the children's strong preferences, the court ordered that the children continue to reside primarily with the applicant.

The respondent was ordered to pay child support and a proportionate share of section 7 expenses.

The court also held that the applicant's pension would be divided at source, excluded a property held in trust for the applicant's brother from net family property, and denied the applicant's claim for occupation rent.

Following a 20-year marriage, the applicant sought sole decision-making, child support, spousal support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The respondent, who had a history of non-compliance with court orders and had not seen the children in over a year, sought joint decision-making and shared parenting.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making and dismissed the respondent's claim for parenting time.

The court ordered ongoing and retroactive child support based on the respondent's disability income, awarded lump sum spousal support to the applicant, and granted her exclusive possession of the matrimonial home to facilitate its sale.