Serena Lein

The appellant husband appealed the trial judge's order for an unequal division of net family property and occupation rent following a 32-year marriage.

The trial judge found unconscionability based on the husband forcing the wife to sign a joint line of credit through violence and threats.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's findings on unconscionability, occupation rent, minor calculation errors, or the amendment of pleadings at trial.

The appeal of the costs award was also dismissed due to the husband's unreasonable behaviour during the litigation.

Following a 20-year traditional marriage, the appellant challenged a trial judgment concerning spousal support, equalization, a 1998 estate freeze, and costs.

The court upheld the trial judge's findings that the shares received in the estate freeze were a gift, that the appellant could not withdraw her admission to that effect late in the trial, and that the estate freeze did not amount to a fraudulent conveyance under s. 2 of the Fraudulent Conveyances Act because she was neither a creditor nor an "other" person with standing at the relevant time and fraudulent intent was not established.

The court also held that admitting the father's prior affidavit did not render the trial unfair.

However, the court varied the support order by removing the ten-year limit and making spousal support indefinite, subject to variation or termination on a material change in circumstances, and reduced the monthly rate for payment of the costs award.

The appellant father appealed a trial decision dismissing his application under the Hague Convention for the return of his six-year-old daughter to Peru.

The mother had wrongfully retained the child in Ontario but invoked the Article 13(b) 'grave risk' exception, citing a history of domestic violence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that returning the child to Peru would expose her to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or place her in an intolerable situation.

The appeal was dismissed, allowing the mother's custody claim to proceed in Ontario.

The moving party father brought a motion at the Court of Appeal for unsupervised access to his child pending his appeal of a Superior Court decision dismissing his Hague Convention application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act, which restricts such motions to the Superior Court or Family Court.

In the alternative, the court held that even if it had jurisdiction, it would dismiss the motion on the merits due to a real risk that the father would remove the child to Peru.

Following a seven‑day trial concerning a Hague Convention application for the return of a child to a foreign jurisdiction, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant father had sought the return of the child under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, while the respondent mother successfully relied on the Article 13(b) exception to resist return.

The successful party sought full recovery costs of over $83,000, arguing complete success and reliance on discretionary factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules.

The court rejected the argument that costs could only be awarded under Article 26 of the Hague Convention and held that the ordinary operation of Rule 24 applied.

While some reductions were warranted, the court found the bill of costs generally reasonable and awarded the successful party $64,000 in all‑inclusive costs.

The applicant father sought the return of a child to Perú under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction after the respondent mother retained the child in Ontario beyond a court‑authorized travel period.

The mother conceded the retention was wrongful but relied on the Article 13(b) exception, arguing that returning the child would expose her to a grave risk of psychological harm or an intolerable situation due to persistent domestic violence, threats, harassment, and violent confrontations involving the father and his family in Perú.

After a full trial, the court found credible evidence of ongoing intimidation, physical altercations, and the child’s exposure to violence and instability.

The court concluded the mother met the high threshold under Article 13(b), and that undertakings or temporary protective measures would not sufficiently mitigate the risks, particularly given the likelihood of further harassment and possible arrest of the mother upon return.

The application for the child’s return was dismissed, allowing the mother’s custody claim in Ontario to proceed.