Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The applicant brought an uncontested motion to change a 1995 final order to terminate his spousal support obligation.

The original order provided for a review when the respondent turned 65.

The applicant, now 65, experienced a decrease in income due to the loss of a pension supplement and depletion of his assets, resulting in a monthly deficit.

The court applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and the principles from Moge and Bracklow, finding that the applicant had paid support well above the high range for 17 years.

The court terminated the spousal support obligation and ordered the respondent to reimburse any overpayments.

A father appealed a summary judgment order of the Ontario Court of Justice that made two children crown wards without access for the purpose of adoption in a child protection proceeding.

The father argued the motions judge misapplied the summary judgment test and that a triable issue existed regarding reunification.

The Superior Court held that the correct legal test had been applied and that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The record showed long-standing concerns about the father’s judgment, instability, criminal conduct, and inability to provide safe parenting.

The appeal was dismissed and the crown wardship order remained in effect.

The respondent father brought two Motions to Change a prior custody and access order made in the context of divorce proceedings.

The applicant mother argued that Ontario lacked jurisdiction because the child had been living in Florida for over two years and that custody and access issues should be litigated there under the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The court held that the original custody and access order was made pursuant to the Divorce Act and that variation proceedings must therefore be governed by that statute.

Under s. 5 of the Divorce Act, jurisdiction exists where either former spouse is ordinarily resident in the province.

Because the father remained resident in Ontario and the proceedings had a real and substantial connection to Ontario, the court retained jurisdiction and dismissed the request to strike the motions.

The appellant father appealed a decision ordering ongoing and retroactive child support for an adult child with severe disabilities.

The appellate court upheld the finding that the child qualified for support under s. 31 of the Family Law Act because her participation in an adapted educational program constituted full-time education in light of her medical limitations.

The court also upheld the retroactive support award based on the father’s blameworthy conduct in failing to disclose income increases, consistent with the principles in DBS v. SRG.

However, the court held that the impact of the adult child’s Ontario Disability Support Program benefits on the quantum of support had not been properly analyzed and required further evidentiary consideration.

That issue was remitted to the Ontario Court of Justice for determination while the remainder of the appeal was dismissed.

Following a family law trial, the court issued a supplementary endorsement addressing clarification requests regarding earlier reasons for decision.

The judge explained the limited post‑trial jurisdiction and emphasized that the role was confined to clarifying the judgment to facilitate preparation of the final order.

The court reviewed the draft order prepared following trial and identified three corrections required to accurately reflect the reasons for decision, including clarification regarding child residence arrangements and the finding that no notional costs of sale were to be applied.

Administrative steps were also directed to process the divorce and to prepare an order involving the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

Following marital breakdown, the court determined the respondent’s income for support purposes, retroactive spousal support obligations, and credits relating to children's educational expenses.

The respondent was a commercial real estate agent whose income fluctuated significantly and who failed to provide adequate financial disclosure for the most recent year.

The court drew an adverse inference regarding income and used a multi‑year average including the year of separation to determine income for support purposes.

The court also addressed contributions toward section 7 educational expenses, determining both parents remained responsible despite estrangement between the applicant and one child.

Spousal support was recalculated retroactively and prospectively, with adjustments for credits and child support obligations.

Parents appealed a summary judgment order making their children Crown wards without access in a child protection proceeding.

The appeal challenged the motion judge’s conclusion that there were no genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether Crown wardship was the least disruptive alternative in the children’s best interests under the Child and Family Services Act.

The court held that the evidentiary record revealed no material factual disputes, but rather disagreements about the interpretation of undisputed facts concerning the parents’ commitment and capacity to parent.

Given the statutory time limits on society wardship and the children’s need for permanence and stability, summary judgment was appropriate.

The appeal from the denial of post‑Crown wardship access was also dismissed because the parents failed to adduce evidence satisfying the statutory test requiring proof that access would be beneficial and would not impair adoption prospects.

Following a five‑day family law trial, the court addressed costs after the parties were unable to agree.

The applicant had been largely successful at trial and sought costs exceeding $67,000, while the respondent sought comparable costs or alternatively an order that each party bear their own costs.

The court applied the presumption in Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules that a successful party is entitled to costs, while considering discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and the parties’ financial circumstances.

Particular weight was given to the fact that the children primarily resided with the respondent and the potential financial impact of a costs award on the custodial parent.

The court ordered the respondent to pay reduced costs of $37,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable from her share of the matrimonial home proceeds or through set‑off against spousal support if necessary.

The applicant mother and respondent father brought cross-motions regarding interim child and spousal support.

The mother sought to maintain the status quo, arguing there was insufficient evidence to impute income to the self-employed father, whose tax returns showed negative income despite significant spending.

The father sought to impute his income at $50,000 and requested the mother pay child support for their adult daughter attending college.

The court agreed there was insufficient evidence to impute the father's income and maintained the status quo for his support obligations.

However, the court ordered the mother to pay $350 per month in child support for the college-aged daughter, calculating an estimated range based on the parties' likely incomes.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 2003 consent judgment, seeking an increase in spousal support due to her inability to work from medical issues and the respondent's increased income.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the respondent's increased income and the applicant's lack of income.

However, the court imputed an income of $25,000 to the applicant, finding insufficient expert evidence to prove she was medically unable to work as a licensed paralegal.

The court also found insufficient evidence that the parties' 30-year-old son remained a dependent of the respondent.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court increased spousal support to $1,950 per month and ordered the respondent to continue providing health coverage, but dismissed the applicant's other claims.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing their Rule 21 motion to strike the action as statute‑barred and an abuse of process.

The dispute arose from a payment allegedly made to facilitate the purchase of a condominium, which the responding party claimed was held in trust to provide lifetime accommodation.

The court found there was good reason to doubt the motion judge’s conclusion that the claim for ongoing support avoided the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court also expressed doubt that a claim for parental support under s. 32 of the Family Law Act could succeed where the moving parties had never been supported or cared for by the responding party as children.

Leave to appeal was granted on these issues but refused regarding the costs award.

On a family law motion concerning a trust fund established by prior consent order to secure child support, the moving party sought release of the full $200,000 trust balance to himself.

The court found persistent non-payment of child support and section 7 expenses, extensive evidence of undisclosed capital resources, and repeated misrepresentations affecting credibility.

Income was imputed to the moving party, arrears were quantified, and the court assessed ongoing and future support obligations against the trust’s intended protective purpose.

Applying the Family Law Act support principles and the terms of the prior order, the court directed that the full trust balance with accrued interest be paid to the responding party for child support purposes.

All other relief was dismissed, with costs submissions to follow.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, all parties agreed the children remained in need of protection due to parental incapacity and sought a permanent care plan under s. 57.1.

Competing plans proposed placement with maternal grandparents, with the paternal grandmother, or maintenance of split placements.

After reviewing extensive evidence on caregiving capacity, family conflict, cultural and religious issues, and the children’s best interests, the court ordered shared legal custody between the maternal grandparents and the paternal grandmother on an alternating weekly schedule.

The court also set terms for religious holidays, birthday exchanges, and transition arrangements.

Costs decision following a family law motion previously decided by the court.

The parties reached an agreement regarding costs after the motion ruling was released.

The court endorsed the agreement, ordering the respondent to pay $2,500 in costs to the applicant, inclusive, to be satisfied by way of set‑off against future spousal support.

The court also clarified the total amount to be redirected by the Family Responsibility Office in accordance with the earlier endorsement.

The father brought a motion to change a 2000 divorce judgment, seeking to terminate child support for one child and adjust it for the other based on a reduction in his income after he sold his dental practice and moved to Honduras.

The court found the father was intentionally unemployed and under-employed, and that his health issues did not reasonably justify the sale of his practice.

The court imputed income to the father and determined the periods during which each child remained a 'child of the marriage' while pursuing post-secondary education.

The father was ordered to pay retroactive table support and his pro rata share of section 7 expenses for both children.

A family law trial addressing custody, parenting arrangements, child support, and spousal support following separation.

The parties had already been exercising a shared parenting arrangement for several years.

The respondent alleged the applicant had alcohol abuse and parenting deficiencies and sought sole custody, while the applicant sought continuation of shared custody.

The court found the allegations largely unsupported and determined both parties were capable parents.

Joint custody with equal parenting time was ordered, retroactive child support was granted, retroactive spousal support was dismissed due to delay and hardship considerations, and ongoing child and spousal support were set based on imputed and actual incomes.

The applicant step-mother sought joint custody and extensive access to her nine-year-old step-daughter following her separation from the respondent father.

The biological parents, who shared custody, opposed the application and sought to limit access, citing the child's resistance and the high conflict between the parties.

The court found that all three adults contributed to the deterioration of the child's relationship with the applicant.

The court denied joint custody but ordered limited, graduated access, conditional on all parties attending mandatory counseling to repair the relationship.

The respondent father was also found in contempt for failing to facilitate court-ordered access.

Additionally, the court resolved child support for the parties' biological child based on current income and ordered the applicant to remove the respondent from a joint line of credit.

Following a motion to vary terms of a separation agreement relating to child support, the applicant sought costs.

The court found that both parties achieved a degree of success.

While the respondent should have made financial disclosure earlier, the applicant acted unreasonably by deliberately breaching the separation agreement requirement to deposit funds into the child’s RESP.

Considering the conduct of both parties, the court declined to award costs.

Following a successful application for spousal support, the applicant sought costs of the proceeding.

The court found the matter to be straightforward and confirmed that the applicant was the successful party.

Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure was not engaged because none of the settlement offers triggered its application.

The respondent increased the applicant’s legal costs by alleging a conflict of interest against opposing counsel and later abandoning that claim.

The court fixed costs at $15,000 and ordered that the amount be treated as costs incurred to obtain support, enforceable through a support deduction order.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and child support for the parties' 15-year-old child.

The respondent father requested joint custody or an order requiring consultation on major decisions, and claimed his only income was social assistance.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, finding the parties' estrangement made joint custody unworkable.

The court imputed an income of $26,000 to the father due to his intentional underemployment and failure to provide financial disclosure, ordering him to pay $210 per month in child support and 53% of section 7 expenses.