Sheila Mary Holmes

The applicant father and respondent mother separated after a five-and-a-half-year cohabitation and brief marriage.

They have two young children.

The applicant sought sole or joint custody, while the respondent sought sole custody.

The court found a history of domestic violence by the applicant and high conflict between the parties, making joint custody inappropriate.

Sole custody was awarded to the respondent, with generous access to the applicant.

The court imputed income to the applicant at $206,700 and to the respondent at $27,000.

The applicant was ordered to pay table child support and mid-range spousal support for a fixed period of five years.

The court also valued the applicant's business and other assets, resulting in an equalization payment of $91,056.10 owed by the respondent to the applicant.

In a family law proceeding concerning child and spousal support, the applicant brought a motion to compel financial disclosure and to strike the respondent’s motion to change an existing support order that had incorporated a prior arbitral award imputing significant income to the respondent.

The respondent asserted a substantially lower income and sought retroactive variation of support, while the applicant alleged the respondent’s income remained significantly higher and sought increased support.

The court reviewed the history of disclosure, expert reports, and arrears of support.

Rather than striking the motion to change, the court directed compliance with disclosure obligations, ordered payment of arrears, scheduled further case management steps, and set the matter down for trial.

The deceased's ex-wife and his common-law partner both claimed entitlement to his surviving spousal pension benefit.

The OMERS Appeal Sub-committee found in favour of the common-law partner.

The ex-wife successfully applied for judicial review, with the Divisional Court quashing the decision on the basis that the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the standard of review for the legal obligation to give reasons is correctness, not reasonableness.

Applying a functional approach, the Court found the Tribunal's reasons were sufficient as they explained why the decision was made and permitted effective judicial review.

The appeal was allowed and the application for judicial review dismissed.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judgment that ordered joint custody and unsupervised access to the respondent father.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made several material errors, including excluding evidence predating a prior consent order, ordering joint custody despite finding a change in custody would traumatize the children and the parents could not communicate, and ignoring the evidence of the court-appointed therapist who recommended no access for two years.

The appeal was allowed, the custody and access orders were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant wife appealed an interim order restraining her from sending scurrilous letters to third parties about her husband, and a sealing order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that such letters can constitute harassment under section 46 of the Family Law Act.

The court held that while the order infringed the appellant's freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter, it was justified under section 1 as a proportionate measure given its narrow scope and limited duration.

The sealing order was also upheld.