Shelley C. Quinn

The court declared that the transfer of a wheelchair-accessible van from the respondent father to a friend was a fraudulent conveyance void against the applicant mother, a creditor.

The court ordered the proceeds of the subsequent sale of the van to be paid to the mother’s solicitors in trust to secure her equalization and support claims, and awarded costs against both respondents.

The decision reviews the legal framework for fraudulent conveyances and the tracing of proceeds under Ontario law.

The applicant, Dalila Jarvis, sought a stay of a lower court order granting the respondent, Stephen Jarvis, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and authorizing its sale.

The applicant argued she would suffer irreparable harm and that the original order prejudiced the children's best interests.

The respondent opposed the stay, citing his financial insolvency.

The Court of Appeal, applying the three-part test for a stay, found that while the appeal raised a serious question, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as alternative accommodation was possible and the loss of the home was inevitable.

The balance of convenience favoured the respondent, who faced insolvency if the sale was delayed.

The motion for a stay was dismissed, and the respondent was awarded costs.

The respondent father, sole owner of the matrimonial home, brought a motion under s. 23 of the Family Law Act to dispense with the applicant mother's consent to sell the property.

The mother had enjoyed de facto exclusive possession for seven years while the father paid all carrying costs, resulting in severe financial hardship for him.

The court harmonized the legal standards for selling a matrimonial home under the Family Law Act and the Partition Act, holding that the test for a solely owned home should be the same as for a jointly owned home: whether the party proposing the sale is acting maliciously, vexatiously, or oppressively.

Finding no such conduct by the father, the court granted the motion, dispensed with the mother's consent, and ordered exclusive possession to the father to prepare the home for sale.

This trial concerned parenting and child support for the parties' daughter, Melanie.

The father sought sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, alleging the mother was a flight risk and had poor judgment regarding Melanie's documents and travel.

The mother sought shared or sole decision-making and primary residence.

The court found the mother was not a flight risk and that the father had exaggerated or fabricated some claims, and that the paternal grandmother's significant involvement and negative views of the mother were detrimental to Melanie's best interests.

The court granted joint decision-making responsibility, with the mother having final say in case of disagreement, and ordered Melanie's primary residence to be with the mother.

Specific orders were made regarding document custody and travel restrictions.

Child support was also determined, with the father ordered to pay retroactive and prospective child support to the mother, and the mother to pay prospective child support to the father for a period.

The applicant father sought an order to enroll the three-year-old child in a full-time preschool program at K.B. Daycare, five days per week.

The respondent mother opposed the enrollment on her parenting days and sought transfer of the custody and access proceedings to the Superior Court of Justice to consolidate with her property and support claims.

The court granted the transfer to the Superior Court and ordered the child enrolled in the full-time program but exempted the child from attendance on the mother's parenting days, without prejudice to the father renewing the motion once the child starts junior kindergarten.

The court found that avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings and consolidating all family law issues in one court served the interests of justice, despite concerns about delay.

The parties' motions concerned child support, daycare expenses, and the removal of belongings following their separation.

The applicant mother sought interim child support and daycare contributions retroactive to the application date.

The respondent father sought to dismiss the application, reduce child support due to alleged undue hardship from supporting his adult children, and have costs owed to him paid directly rather than credited against arrears.

The court dismissed the father's motions, finding no undue hardship, and ordered child support based on his 2017 income.

The court also ordered the father to pay his proportionate share of daycare expenses and directed that the costs owed by the mother be applied as a credit against the father's child support and daycare arrears, prioritizing the children's financial needs.

Orders were also made regarding the removal of the father's belongings and increased access to the youngest child.

This is a summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto in a status review application concerning a child born in 2015 who was removed from parental care due to prenatal drug exposure and other protection concerns.

The society sought an order placing the child in the care and custody of the maternal grandmother pursuant to section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The parents sought to have the child returned to their joint care subject to supervision.

The court found that the parents had not made sufficient progress in addressing the original concerns—including substance abuse, domestic conflict, dishonesty, and failure to maintain consistent access—and that placement with the maternal grandmother remained in the child's best interests.

The summary judgment motion was granted.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion by grandparents for temporary access to their 10-year-old grandson.

The grandparents' motion was substantially successful, obtaining access beginning with two 3-hour visits in 2016 and monthly 7-hour day visits starting in January 2017, subject to specified conditions.

The respondent Shelly Blair, the child's custodial caregiver, sought costs of $6,100 against the grandparents and $1,130 against the mother.

The court awarded costs of $3,600 to the grandparents (payable at $300 per month) and $600 to the mother (payable at $50 per month), exercising discretion to discount the full recovery of costs available under the offer to settle rule.

The court considered costs submissions following the applicant's defiance of a consent order to sell the matrimonial home and her subsequent cross-motion for interim support.

The applicant's conduct, including using the house sale as leverage for more support, was deemed unreasonable and contemptuous.

The court awarded the respondent substantial indemnity costs of $8,015.99, payable forthwith and within 60 days, rejecting the applicant's request to defer payment from equalization due to the need for timely indemnity and to ensure the paying party feels the impact of unreasonable conduct.