Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The applicant sought to vary child support back to January 1, 2021, based on the respondent's increased income.

The respondent agreed to some historical adjustment but sought to pay no ongoing child support due to alleged health reasons.

The court determined the cessation dates for child support for the three eldest children.

The court found the respondent intentionally under-employed and imputed income to him for 2023 ($25,000) and from July 1, 2024 ($30,000), rejecting his claim of inability to work due to health issues.

The court calculated child support arrears, adjusting for income changes and changes in dependent status, fixing total arrears at $18,000 as of August 31, 2024.

The court declined to order a payment plan for arrears, citing the respondent's failure to provide financial disclosure and plan for increased obligations.

Ongoing child support was set at $459 per month for the two youngest children.

This family law trial addressed three main issues: the regular parenting schedule, the respondent's alcohol consumption during parenting time, and the children's contact with a third party.

The applicant sought an asymmetric shared parenting schedule, mandatory alcohol monitoring for the respondent, and restrictions on contact with Ms. Foy.

The court affirmed the existing equal-time parenting schedule, finding it promoted the children's best interests and stability.

It ordered the respondent to abstain from alcohol during parenting time and use an alcohol monitoring device for one year due to past breaches of court orders and lack of insight into the impact of his drinking.

The request for restrictions on contact with Ms. Foy was dismissed, as the court found it overreaching and lacking sufficient evidentiary basis, noting Ms. Foy was not a party to the litigation.

The applicant, common-law spouse of the deceased, sought an additional $1 million from the estate based on an alleged secret trust and an order for dependant support under the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA).

The applicant had already received $1 million from the will and cohabitation agreement.

The court dismissed the secret trust claim, finding no clear intention, communication, or acceptance of a trust beyond the existing testamentary provisions.

The dependant support claim was also dismissed, as the court found the deceased had made adequate provision for the applicant, considering her financial independence under the cohabitation agreement, the deceased's lifetime support, and the applicant's current assets, including an imputed $250,000 gift she made to her daughter.

The applicant mother sought an advance on equalization of $10,505,000 to address significant income tax liabilities related to corporate assets managed by the respondent father in her name.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion to set aside or vary existing preservation orders, arguing financial transparency and hardship.

The court granted the applicant an advance on equalization of $7,975,007.60, finding a clear need for the funds to discharge tax liabilities created by the respondent and that the advance would not exceed the likely final equalization payment.

The court dismissed the respondent's cross-motion, finding his financial disclosure lacked transparency and his claims of hardship were unsubstantiated.

The respondent, L.R., brought a motion to admit fresh evidence at trial and to suspend the applicant, P.G.'s, parenting time, following P.G.'s breach of a consent order by removing a child from L.R.'s care.

The court granted the motion to admit fresh evidence, applying the four-part test from R. v. Palmer.

Despite finding P.G. in breach of the order, the court declined to suspend P.G.'s parenting time, reasoning that there was no immediate threat to the child's well-being, the summer parenting schedule would soon commence, and a final decision on parenting time was imminent at trial.

The court ordered P.G. to return the child to L.R.'s care by a specific date and for parenting time to resume according to the existing summer schedule, emphasizing parental encouragement for parenting time.

This was a temporary order pending final trial submissions.

The applicant father sought the return of the children to Ontario after the respondent mother unilaterally relocated them to Alberta.

The court determined that Ontario retained jurisdiction as the children's habitual residence had not changed due to the mother's unilateral move and the father's lack of consent or undue delay.

Despite the mother's failure to provide proper notice of relocation, the court, focusing on the children's best interests, permitted the children to remain with the mother in Alberta on a temporary basis, citing the benefits of immediate access to special needs services and the family's newfound stability there.

The court ordered the mother to provide the father with residential and contact information and professional contacts for the children, and for the father to have virtual visits, with further in-person parenting time to be conferenced.

The Mother sought to relocate the Son from Sault Ste.

Marie to the Barrie/Parry Sound area, citing better support networks and employment opportunities.

The Father opposed the relocation, emphasizing the Son's stable life and strong bonds with him and the paternal grandparents in Sault Ste.

Marie.

The court dismissed the Mother's application, finding that while her proposed plan was reasonable, the benefits of relocation did not outweigh the significant detriment of severing the Son's existing strong emotional ties with his Father and paternal grandparents.

The decision underscored that maintaining maximum parental contact and emotional stability was in the child's best interests.

The applicant mother sought retroactive and prospective child support arrears from the respondent father, alleging underpayment since 2016.

The respondent father sought reimbursement for alleged overpayments and a variation to shared parenting time.

The court granted the applicant's claim for $31,434 in retroactive child support arrears, finding the respondent's alleged overpayments and in-kind contributions did not offset the underpayment.

The court dismissed the respondent's request for shared parenting, maintaining the mother as the primary caregiver with increased but progressive parenting time for the father, and granted the mother final decision-making authority due to high conflict.

The court also set ongoing child support and special expenses.

The applicants brought a non-party production motion in a multi-party Children’s Law Reform Act application concerning the future care of three Indigenous children.

The motion sought records from Probation and Parole Services, the Ontario Provincial Police, and Payukotayno-James and Hudson’s Bay Family Services regarding the respondent parents and the children's older siblings.

The court granted the production order, finding the records relevant to determining the children's best interests and understanding the family's history, including constitutional questions related to Indigenous inherent rights.

The court balanced privacy interests against the need for full disclosure, noting the parents' non-engagement and the existing sealing order.

The applicant sought interim child and spousal support, and the respondent brought a cross-motion for parenting orders.

The court previously granted the applicant exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and a temporary shared parenting schedule.

This endorsement addresses the remaining support issues, the respondent's income for support purposes, and the selection of a s. 30 assessor.

The court determined the respondent's income for support purposes based on his investment portfolio's net equity and historical rate of return.

Interim set-off child support and mid-range spousal support were ordered, with the applicant taking over matrimonial home expenses.

The court also ordered Dr. Morris to conduct the s. 30 assessment due to Dr. Polak's unavailability.

Procedural orders for document production, questioning, and a settlement conference were made on consent.

The applicant sought sole custody, child support, and other relief in an uncontested family law trial.

The respondent, who struggled with substance abuse and had a criminal record, did not meaningfully participate.

The court granted the applicant sole custody and primary residence of the two children.

Income was imputed to the respondent at $60,000 for child support purposes, and he was ordered to repay a $30,000 down payment.

The court declined to terminate the respondent's access entirely, instead ordering supervised access.

Following an eight-day trial where the applicant was successful in establishing entitlement to spousal support, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought costs of $366,764.44, while the respondent argued no costs should be payable.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful on the central issue and noted the respondent's unreasonable behaviour regarding disclosure and evasive testimony.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $324,179.

This trial addressed the disputed dates of cohabitation and separation between the parties.

The Applicant argued cohabitation began in April 2011 and separation on April 15, 2012, while the Respondent asserted cohabitation started on April 10, 2010, and separation on February 5, 2016.

The court, after hearing extensive evidence from both parties and witnesses, found that cohabitation commenced on April 10, 2010, and separation occurred on February 5, 2016, based on a holistic assessment of their relationship, reconciliation efforts, joint financial actions, and how they presented themselves to others.

The court determined costs following a four-day family law trial concerning parenting schedules and school location for the parties' son.

Victoria (Respondent) was deemed substantially successful on the key trial issues, including the parenting schedule and the location of the child's school, despite some mixed success on specific aspects.

Applying the presumption of costs in favour of the successful party under the Family Law Rules, the court awarded Victoria $35,000 in costs, payable by Keith (Applicant) within 60 days, emphasizing proportionality and reasonableness in fixing the amount.

The applicant father brought a motion for further orders to enforce a trial decision that granted him sole custody of his 13-year-old son and ordered no contact with the respondent mother due to severe parental alienation.

The child had been rebelling, running away, and refusing to comply with the father's authority or attend reconciliation therapy, while the mother continued to undermine the transition.

The court granted the father's motion, issuing specific orders to restrict the child's contact with the maternal family, enforce the father's parental authority, and compel the mother to cooperate with therapy and relinquish control over the child's cell phone and documents.

The mother's cross-motion for access was dismissed as premature.

The Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex brought a status review application seeking a finding that the child remained in need of protection and an order granting custody to the maternal aunt and uncle.

The mother sought the child's return to her care.

The court found the child remained in need of protection due to the mother's pattern of associating with dangerous men, her difficulty perceiving and removing herself from such risks, and her inconsistent parenting skills.

The court granted custody to the aunt and uncle, finding it to be in the child's best interests, and ordered supervised access for the mother.

This 13-day trial concerned custody, access, and child support for an 11-year-old child, as well as a contempt motion against the applicant mother.

The court found the mother's conduct to be characterized by dishonesty, manipulation, and a lack of integrity, impacting her capacity to parent.

The child's wishes to reside primarily with the father and have unstructured access with the mother were given significant weight.

The court granted sole custody and primary residential care to the father, with structured access for the mother.

No retroactive or ongoing child support was ordered from either parent.

The mother was found in contempt for failing to comply with court orders, resulting in a $250 fine.

Brody David Streeter (father) brought a motion to change two final orders, seeking sole custody of his two children, Ryder and Piper, from Stephanie Erin Hodgins (mother).

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's increased role and the children's residence with him.

Based on the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) report and the parents' plans of care, the court granted sole custody to the father, with liberal access to the mother.

The decision also addressed communication, counselling, health card custody, holiday schedules, and a prohibition on the mother's new partner being alone with the children.

Child support was set at no base support, with Section 7 extraordinary expenses shared equally.

This trial decision addresses complex family law issues following a long marriage, including child support, special expenses, and property equalization.

The court determined the appropriate income for child support calculations by imputing a portion of the applicant's employment expenses and excluding a non-recurring RRSP withdrawal.

It also clarified the duration of child support for an adult child pursuing education.

For property equalization, the court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home and a lump-sum payment from the applicant's Canadian Forces pension to the respondent, grossed-up for the respondent's future tax liability.

Claims for past special expenses were dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The Father brought a motion to change a divorce order, seeking sole custody and a variation of child support, citing the Mother's persistent unfounded allegations of abuse, non-compliance with court orders, and interference with the children's education and health.

The Mother sought to maintain joint custody or obtain sole custody for herself.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the deleterious effects of parental conflict on the children, the Mother's persistent unfounded allegations, and her lack of insight into the children's needs.

Sole custody and primary residence were granted to the Father, with weekly access to the Mother.