Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

This motion concerned an interim parenting schedule for a 2.5-year-old child following the separation of unmarried parents.

The applicant father sought increased parenting time, which the respondent mother opposed, proposing a more gradual reintroduction.

The court applied the "best interests of the child" principle under the Children's Law Reform Act, noting that the "tender years" doctrine no longer applies and breastfeeding is one of many factors.

The court considered the geographic distance between the parents, the mother's mental health issues and associated release order, and the mother's uncooperative approach to facilitating parenting time.

While acknowledging the mother as the primary caregiver pre-separation, the court ordered a structured, gradually increasing parenting schedule for the father, including weeknight visits in the mother's area and weekend visits at a midpoint location.

The motion was adjourned for continuation in several months to assess the schedule's effectiveness and allow for further evidence.

The applicant sought amendments to previous orders for partition and sale and exclusive possession of a jointly owned property, due to the respondent's continued non-compliance and refusal to vacate.

The court granted vacant exclusive possession and amended the restraining order to prohibit the respondent from being within 200 metres of the property at all times.

However, the court declined to issue an order directing police on the use of physical force or warrantless arrest, instead granting leave for the applicant to seek further urgent relief, such as contempt or a writ of possession.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

Following a motion for temporary parenting orders where the respondent was largely successful, the court determined the costs to be awarded.

The respondent sought $66,070 on a full recovery basis, arguing the applicant engaged in bad faith.

The court found the applicant's conduct was unreasonable, though not in bad faith, and that the respondent beat his offer to settle, entitling him to full recovery from the date of the offer.

After reducing some duplicate dockets, the court fixed costs payable by the applicant to the respondent at $50,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order placing the child in the custody of his paternal aunt and uncle.

The mother consented to a protection finding based on emotional harm but opposed findings based on physical harm and the proposed access disposition.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the child in need of protection due to the mother's unresolved substance abuse and domestic violence issues.

The court ordered custody to the kin care providers with specified minimum access for the mother, leaving further expansion of access to the caregivers' discretion.

In a divorce action, the maternal grandparents brought a motion to be added as parties to advance a claim for access, which was dismissed.

The court determined the costs of the dismissed motion.

Finding that the motion had no chance of success and the procedure pursued was inappropriate at a late stage, the court awarded the responding party full indemnity costs fixed at $7,000.

In a family law proceeding, the parties brought competing motions seeking various interim relief including disclosure, equalization advances, support adjustments, reimbursement claims, and other orders.

The court emphasized that interim orders are intended to provide temporary structure pending trial and discouraged repeated motions attempting to re‑litigate previously determined issues.

Several claims were dismissed or deferred to trial due to insufficient evidence or because they were more appropriately resolved on a full evidentiary record.

The court increased interim spousal support after the cessation of child support and imputed limited farming income to the husband.

A restraining order was issued preventing the wife from accessing the husband’s financial records or business premises through self‑help methods.

Following repeated adjournment requests by the applicant in a family trial and the eventual adjournment after medical evidence indicated the applicant was unfit to attend, the respondent sought costs thrown away.

The court reviewed the principles governing costs thrown away under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

Even absent fault, a party responsible for an adjournment may be required to compensate the opposing party for wasted trial preparation.

The court found the applicant responsible for the adjournment and awarded the respondent full indemnity costs thrown away for wasted preparation and court attendances, together with partial indemnity costs of the costs motion.

The applicant sought orders concerning custody and access of two children following separation.

Both parties, who were teachers, asserted they were active and capable parents, with the applicant requesting joint custody while alleging she had been the primary caregiver and the respondent seeking equal parenting time.

The court granted a temporary order for joint custody and implemented a rotating week‑on/week‑off parenting schedule following a short‑term holiday access arrangement.

The court declined to limit the respondent’s parenting time absent evidence justifying continued restrictions and noted insufficient information to make a longer‑term interim access determination pending trial.

Requests for production of counselling program records were dismissed as improper third‑party disclosure, while CAS records were ordered releasable subject to agency discretion.

Following settlement of a motion to change a prior child support order at the start of trial, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party sought full or partial indemnity costs, arguing the proceeding was necessary to obtain updated support based on the responding party’s income and to compel disclosure.

The responding party argued that the settlement largely reflected his offer and that no costs should be ordered.

The court held that the motion to change was necessary to secure proper support and disclosure, but excluded costs related to case and settlement conferences under the Family Law Rules.

The court awarded reduced costs to the moving party, enforceable as child support.

Following a brief marriage and the birth of a child, the applicant sought custody, child support, section 7 expenses, retroactive and ongoing support, and limited access arrangements for the respondent father residing in the United States.

The court found the father intentionally under‑employed and imputed income of $150,000 for child support purposes under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

Evidence from supervised access providers demonstrated the father’s interactions with the child were appropriate, while the applicant had interfered with access.

The court ordered a structured regime beginning with supervised access followed by unsupervised access in Ontario, declining immediate international access visits.

Retroactive child support and limited retroactive spousal support during the maternity leave period were granted, and proportionate contributions were ordered for childcare expenses.

Following a concluded child protection trial in which the court ordered Crown wardship without access for the child, the court addressed a related proceeding under the Children's Law Reform Act involving claims for custody, access, and child support.

Because the child protection order had already determined the child’s status and eliminated parental access, the court found no basis to continue adjudicating the family law claims.

The court therefore dismissed all outstanding claims in the CLRA proceeding as moot in light of the Crown wardship order made in the child protection file.

Following settlement of a family law motion to change concerning termination of child and spousal support, the remaining issue before the court was costs.

The applicant sought over $42,000 in costs arising from the respondent’s unsuccessful attempt to terminate support and related proceedings.

The court reviewed the parties’ conduct, the settlement outcome, and multiple offers to settle in accordance with s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 24(5) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the applicant’s position was not unreasonable and rejected a claim relating to income tax penalties as outside the scope of a costs determination.

Costs were awarded to the applicant in a reduced amount.

Maternal grandparents brought a motion for interim custody of a young child following an ex parte order obtained after the mother attempted suicide.

The mother brought a cross‑motion seeking the child’s return.

The court considered the best interests of the child under the Children's Law Reform Act and emphasized that interim custody decisions should generally maintain the true status quo unless strong evidence justifies disruption.

The court found the status quo was the child’s care with the mother since birth, and that the suicide attempt was not serious and was connected to a volatile relationship with the child’s father rather than parenting incapacity.

Evidence from child protection services and support workers indicated no concerns with the mother’s parenting.

Interim custody was returned to the mother with structured access for the grandparents.

Following marital breakdown, the parties disputed property division relating to a gravel pit business and jointly owned property.

The respondent relied on a handwritten document signed by the applicant purporting to relinquish her interest in the business.

The court found the document invalid due to duress, lack of disclosure, and absence of independent legal advice.

The court determined that the parties operated the business as equal partners and assessed assets and debts primarily as of the separation date.

After valuing the remaining assets, liabilities, and credit card debts, the court ordered the respondent to pay equalization to the applicant and declined to make findings regarding alleged fraudulent transfers to a third party.

The applicant spouse brought a motion seeking an order authorizing the sale of the matrimonial home and dispensing with the respondent spouse’s consent to documents necessary to effect the sale.

The parties’ separation agreement required the property to be listed and sold within one year, but the respondent refused to cooperate and stated he would not sell the property.

The court found the respondent was unreasonably withholding consent within the meaning of s. 23(b)(iii) of the Family Law Act and had failed to file responding material or comply with prior orders.

The court authorized the applicant to list and sell the property through a specified real estate agent, dispensed with the respondent’s spousal consent to sale documents, and ordered preservation of the property pending sale.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Court of Justice order made after an uncontested family trial that imputed income to him and required payment of child support, while the respondent brought a cross‑appeal seeking retroactive child support and full indemnity costs.

The appellate court found that the uncontested trial proceeded without proper service or notice to the appellant despite an upcoming scheduled hearing and unresolved disclosure issues.

The court held that fundamental procedural fairness requires that a litigant receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before a final order affecting legal rights is made.

Because the order was obtained ex parte without justification, it was set aside and the matter directed to proceed to trial.

Interim support and disclosure orders were imposed to move the matter forward.

The applicant sought a declaration dividing the respondent’s Canadian Forces pension under the federal Pension Benefits Division Act and requiring execution of documents to implement the division.

The court held that the federal legislation does not create an independent entitlement to pension division but merely provides a mechanism for implementing equalization of pension assets.

Entitlement to share in the pension must first arise through provincial family property legislation.

Because the claim was effectively an equalization claim brought more than six years after separation, it was barred by the limitation period under s.7(3) of the Family Law Act.

The application was therefore dismissed.

The responding spouse brought a motion to vary an interim spousal support order that required monthly support based on an imputed income of $60,000.

The moving party argued that a suspended driver’s licence and resulting unemployment justified reducing support.

The court held that a licence suspension arising from non-payment of support does not constitute a material change in circumstances.

Given prior findings of non-disclosure and credibility concerns, the court declined to revisit the earlier imputed income determination.

The motion to vary the spousal support order was dismissed.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking an accounting of assets transferred to the applicant mother to satisfy a net family property equalization order, as well as temporary spousal support payable to him and potential striking of the mother's pleadings for non‑compliance.

The motion arose in the context of a 1998 final order granting the mother substantial equalization and support entitlements following a long marriage.

The court held that while the father could seek disclosure relating to credits against the equalization judgment, he had not utilized available disclosure mechanisms under the Family Law Rules and had not provided updated financial disclosure required for a motion to change support.

The court also found no sufficient explanation for the father’s request to terminate and reverse spousal support obligations after many years.

The motion was dismissed, with disclosure issues left to proceed through normal procedural mechanisms.

Following a lengthy family trial, the court determined costs on written submissions and found the responding party's disclosure failures and litigation conduct materially increased complexity and trial time.

The court declined to revisit prior costs awards and rejected the responding party's claim for personal compensation for business time.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the moving party, but full indemnity was not granted because the conduct did not meet an egregious bad-faith threshold.

The court fixed pre-trial, trial, and post-trial fees and disbursements totalling $74,537.43 and characterized the costs as related to child support enforcement and collection.