Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

This is Part 3 of a trial decision concerning property and support issues.

The court addressed the mother's current income, section 7 expenses for the children, and spousal support calculations, following directions from a previous decision.

The father failed to provide requested financial information, leading the court to base its decision on the mother's submissions.

The court accepted the mother's calculations for section 7 expenses and spousal support, using gross amounts for spousal support.

The decision reconciled child and spousal support arrears, setting off amounts against equalization payment and occupational rent previously ordered, resulting in a net amount owed by the father to the mother.

Ongoing child and spousal support orders were made.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions concerning mortgage enforcement and possession of a matrimonial home.

The Defendant and a non-party spouse sought to set aside a writ of possession and summary judgment, and for an accounting.

The Plaintiff cross-moved for leave to re-issue a writ of possession.

The court found the existing writ of possession had expired, but granted the Plaintiff leave to issue a fresh writ, subject to a 75-day delay to allow the non-party spouse to redeem, as she was not properly notified of the original motion for the writ.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the summary judgment and the claim for an accounting, and ordered the Plaintiff to provide a mortgage discharge statement.

The parties separated following incidents of family violence, including the respondent hitting their child and physically and sexually assaulting the applicant.

The applicant sought sole decision-making and supervised parenting time, while the respondent sought equal parenting time and joint decision-making.

The court found the applicant's evidence of family violence credible and ordered that the respondent's parenting time be supervised while inside the home, but permitted unsupervised time outside the home.

The applicant was granted sole decision-making responsibility and a permanent restraining order against the respondent.

The court also imputed rental income to the respondent for child support purposes and ordered him to pay an equalization payment and retroactive child support.

The Children's Aid Society initiated a Status Review Application concerning two children, S.W. (17) and S.H. (6), who were previously under a supervision order with their mother.

The Society sought termination of the order for S.W. and extended society care (later custody to kin) for S.H. The mother and S.H.'s father opposed, seeking return of the children.

The court found both children remained in need of protection due to the parents' persistent instability, mental health issues, and lack of engagement.

It ordered the termination of the order for S.W. (who was doing well with paternal family in New Brunswick) and granted custody of S.H. to the kin caregivers (L.B. and Q.B.) in New Brunswick, with incidental orders for access and authority to obtain identification without parental consent.

The mother appealed a child protection order placing her child in extended society care with no access, following a trial where the child was found to have suffered serious unexplained injuries.

She raised three grounds: ineffective counsel, the trial judge's incorrect application of the "unexplained injury principle," and the application of an outdated legal test for access.

The court dismissed the first two grounds, finding no miscarriage of justice regarding ineffective counsel and affirming the correct application of the unexplained injury principle.

However, the court allowed the third ground, agreeing that the trial judge erred in applying an outdated legal test for access under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

Despite this legal error, the appellate court exercised its jurisdiction to decide the access issue itself, concluding that it was not in the child's best interests to order access for the mother, given the history of serious unexplained injuries and the mother's acknowledged risk.

Following a trial where the maternal grandmother was awarded sole custody of the child, the respondents sought costs.

The applicant father argued each party should bear their own costs due to his limited means and the grandmother's alleged bad faith.

The court found the father's behaviour unreasonable during the litigation, which lengthened the process, but did not find bad faith.

Considering the father's ability to pay and the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court ordered the father to pay costs of $15,000 to the grandmother and $3,000 to the mother, payable in monthly instalments.

The applicant sought to relocate with the two young children from London to Woodstock, Ontario.

The respondent, the children's father, opposed the move.

The court, applying the factors from *Gordon v. Goertz* and *Bjornson v. Creighton* under the *Children's Law Reform Act*, found that the relocation was in the children's best interests.

The applicant was the primary caregiver, and the move would improve her employability and financial security, as well as provide her with emotional and psychological support from her family in Woodstock.

The court granted the relocation, with adjustments to transportation costs and access times to accommodate the respondent.

The Applicant sought divorce, custody, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The Respondent, who was self-represented, faced significant credibility issues regarding his income and financial disclosure.

The court determined the date of separation, imputed income to the Respondent for child support purposes due to intentional underemployment, and ordered retroactive and ongoing child support.

The court also ordered an equalization payment and payment for a post-separation debt incurred by the Respondent on the Applicant's credit card.

Daycare expenses were denied due to a lack of credible evidence from the Applicant.

This application concerned custody, access, child support, and spousal support between separated cohabiting parents.

The court granted joint custody, establishing a gradual transition to a shared parenting schedule (week on/week off) by April 2019.

Child support was ordered from the father to the mother, with an offset for shared parenting.

Spousal support was awarded to the mother, time-limited and decreasing over three years, ending December 31, 2021, subject to a material change in circumstances.

The court found the mother had been controlling regarding access but that both parents could effectively co-parent.

This trial addressed complex family law issues including joint custody, primary residence, decision-making authority, child support, spousal support, and joint debts for the parties' daughter.

The court awarded joint custody, with primary residence to the mother, and established a partial parallel parenting regime where the father has final decision-making authority for medical issues and the mother for educational issues.

Child support was ordered from the father, and spousal support was awarded to the mother for a limited period based on compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, considering her MS diagnosis and employment interruptions.

This decision addresses the terms of a father's access to his two young children following separation, with a separate decision to follow on property and equalization issues.

The court considered two OCL reports, which highlighted parental rigidity and the need for a gradual increase in the father's access, coupled with specific safety measures at his home.

The court established a detailed, staged access schedule for the father, gradually increasing overnight access for both children, and imposed conditions on the father regarding home safety (gating wood stoves, car seat inspection, proper sleeping arrangements) and communication.

The court criticized the mother for unduly limiting access and encouraging a child's dependency, and the father for his stubbornness in addressing safety recommendations.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final consent order, seeking recalculated spousal support, child support, and section 7 expenses for 2015, 2016, and 2018.

The parties reached a partial consent agreement regarding ongoing child support and section 7 expenses.

The court determined the parties' incomes and calculated the arrears and overpayments.

The court found the father underpaid child support and section 7 expenses, but overpaid spousal support.

The mother was ordered to repay the spousal support overpayment in monthly installments.

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion seeking the production of marriage counselling records from the Family Services Assistance Program.

The applicant opposed the motion, asserting case-by-case privilege based on a confidentiality agreement signed by both parties.

Applying the Wigmore test, the court found that the communications originated in confidence, confidentiality was essential to the counselling relationship, and the relationship was one that should be fostered.

On the fourth branch of the test, the court concluded that the injury to the marriage counselling relationship and the applicant's privacy interests outweighed the respondent's interest in obtaining the records.

The motion for production was dismissed.

This trial addressed outstanding family law issues including retroactive and ongoing child support, section 7 expenses, and nominal spousal support.

Previous orders had resolved custody, access, and equalization.

The applicant sought significant retroactive support and imputation of income to the respondent.

The court found the respondent owed substantial retroactive child support and section 7 expenses for prior years, but declined to impute income, accepting his efforts to find new employment after involuntary layoffs.

The court also limited section 7 expenses by excluding gymnastics costs post-2015 due to the parties' changed financial means.

The respondent's claim of undue hardship was rejected due to insufficient evidence and poor financial disclosure.

The applicant was awarded costs.

The applicant mother sought joint custody and primary residence of the child, Cylus, along with child support and s.7 expenses.

The respondent father also sought joint custody with primary residence, child support, and s.7 expenses.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" principle under the Children's Law Reform Act, determined that the child's primary residence should be with the father, considering the stability he provided and the mother's military career requiring frequent moves.

The court also addressed child support and s.7 expenses, ordering the mother to pay support and share expenses, with adjustments for past travel costs.

The applicant father sought costs after the respondent mother failed to attend trial and did not submit costs arguments despite being served with the decision and costs submissions.

The court awarded the father $8,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, finding the amount fair and reasonable given the father's success and the mother's failure to participate in the costs process.

The court emphasized that costs rules aim to indemnify successful litigants, encourage settlement, and discourage inappropriate litigant behavior, including ignoring court processes.

The trial addressed adjustments to child access, child support, and net family property.

The applicant father sought changes to access due to concerns about the respondent mother's alcohol use, while the mother raised concerns about the father's financial management.

The court granted joint custody with specific decision-making allocations and a shared parenting schedule.

The father's request for altered exchange procedures due to alcohol concerns was denied as unreasonable, but the mother was ordered to undergo an alcohol addiction assessment.

The post-nuptial agreement was set aside due to non-disclosure and factual errors, leading to a net family property equalization payment of $58,108 from the mother to the father, after various adjustments for pre-marital equity, shared debts, and other financial matters.

Child support was set at $84 per month payable by the mother to the father, and Section 7 expenses were to be shared proportionally.

Addendum to a prior family law judgment correcting calculation errors relating to child support and equalization.

The court corrected the monthly table child support payable based on the payor’s income and recalculated retroactive support for a 40‑month period, resulting in reduced arrears.

Adjustments were also made to reflect an overpayment of child support and to revise the total arrears owed.

The equalization payment between the spouses was correspondingly recalculated after deducting the corrected arrears and other expenses.

The court reaffirmed related orders regarding education fund contributions, pension valuation disclosure, and potential sale of the matrimonial home if the equalization amount remained unpaid.

In a family law motion to change, the moving party sought to reduce child support and suspend spousal support following alleged employment termination.

The responding party sought dismissal of the motion due to repeated non‑compliance with court orders, including failure to provide disclosure, failure to attend court, and failure to comply with support-related obligations.

Applying Rules 1(8), 13(17), and 14(23) of the Family Law Rules and the court’s inherent jurisdiction, the court found persistent and deliberate disregard for court orders and the litigation process.

The motion to change was dismissed, the moving party’s materials were struck, and the responding party’s claims were permitted to proceed on an uncontested basis.

Additional remedial orders were made requiring reimbursement of expenses, imposing conditions on any future proceedings, and requiring security for costs before further litigation could be initiated.

A family law trial addressing parenting access and child support following the separation of unmarried parents.

The applicant father sought access to the parties’ two children, while the respondent mother opposed unsupervised contact due to a pattern of threats, intimidation, and abusive conduct by the father, including criminal convictions for uttering death threats and breach of recognizance.

The court found the father lacked insight into his conduct and that his behaviour had caused significant emotional harm and fear to the mother and children.

Concluding that even supervised access had failed due to the father’s non‑compliance, the court ordered that the father have no access and no decision‑making or informational rights regarding the children.

The court also fixed retroactive child support in a lump sum and ordered ongoing support based on an imputed income.