R. Sonya Jain

A comprehensive family law trial addressing parenting, child support, property equalization, and damages claims arising from a short-term marriage with one child diagnosed with autism.

The court found the respondent not credible on multiple issues, including false assault allegations, and awarded the applicant sole decision-making authority for the child with a graduated parenting schedule, child support based on $60,000 income, an equalization payment of $88,913.89, post-separation adjustments of $26,188.75, and damages for malicious prosecution of $3,000.

The respondent's claims for family violence damages, occupation rent, and a restraining order were dismissed.

The applicant sought an order lifting the automatic stay of proceedings imposed by the respondent's bankruptcy, along with orders to add the bankruptcy trustee as a co-respondent, amend the application, try certain matters, and compel disclosure.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing it was brought in the wrong forum and should be brought in bankruptcy court.

The court found that the motion to lift the stay must be brought in bankruptcy court, not family court, as property claims are stayed by bankruptcy and must be addressed where the stay was imposed.

However, the court granted the applicant's request for disclosure as it relates to both property and support claims, with support claims not being stayed by bankruptcy.

A four-day trial addressing three issues arising from the breakdown of a common-law relationship: (1) the applicant's unjust enrichment claim relating to a property owned solely by the respondent; (2) the respondent's claim for reimbursement of funds deposited to the applicant's Tax-Free Savings Account; and (3) the respondent's tort claim against the applicant.

The parties cohabited for approximately 15 years and had one child together.

The court found the applicant made substantial contributions to the maintenance and improvement of the respondent's property through skilled labour and financial support.

The court granted the applicant's unjust enrichment claim, partially granted the respondent's TFSA reimbursement claim, and dismissed the respondent's tort claim.

The court considered a motion to change a final order regarding child support, including retroactive and ongoing support, and section 7 expenses.

The court found the respondent had failed to comply with disclosure obligations and imputed an income of $97,240 to him, ordering support and arrears accordingly.

The court also fixed section 7 arrears and awarded costs to the applicant, emphasizing the respondent’s chronic non-compliance and the need to discourage such conduct.

This decision addresses a high-conflict family law dispute involving the validity of a family trust, equalization of net family property, unjust enrichment, and support issues.

The court found the Simcoe Group Trust to be a sham, ordered its assets and debts included in the Respondent’s net family property, and granted the Applicant an unequal division of property and lump sum spousal support.

The ruling also addresses the parties’ incomes, child support, and the impact of the Respondent’s financial conduct on the outcome.

The court granted summary judgment in a child protection proceeding, finding the child, T.O., in need of protection and placing her in the deemed custody of her father, J.O., with supervised access to her mother, B.R. The decision reviews the history of parental conflict, the mother’s mental health and repeated unfounded allegations of sexual abuse, and the father’s progress in addressing his own issues.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and concluded that the mother’s lack of insight and continued behaviour posed ongoing risk to the child.

This was a child protection status review hearing under the Child, Youth, and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA) concerning the child LCT.

The Applicant Agency and the Respondent Mother asserted that protection concerns no longer existed, while the Respondent Father maintained they did.

The parties sought a deemed custody order, with the Agency proposing joint custody, the father seeking sole custody and primary residence to him, and the mother seeking sole custody and primary residence to her.

The court found that the child was no longer in need of protection and granted sole custody and primary residence to the mother, with regular scheduled access to the father.

The court found the father's and paternal grandmother's evidence self-serving and unreliable, noting the paternal grandmother's "invisible litigant" behaviour and its negative impact on the child's relationship with the mother.

This ruling addresses the Applicant's motion and the Respondent's cross-motion concerning financial disclosure, refused undertakings, and non-party disclosure from the Applicant's father.

The court emphasized the principle of proportionality in disclosure, dismissing most of the extensive requests from both parties as irrelevant or disproportionate "fishing expeditions." Limited disclosure was granted, primarily related to the Respondent's income and specific non-party financial information (laptop receipt, credit card statements) from the Applicant's father, while other requests were deemed unnecessary or an invasion of privacy.

The Respondent Father moved to vary a previous order to expand his parenting time with the child.

The Applicant Mother opposed, proposing a more restrictive expansion.

The court, considering the child's best interests and a s. 30 Assessment, granted a graduated expansion of the father's parenting time, including alternate weekends, midweek time, and extended summer holiday periods, while rejecting some of the father's specific requests regarding transitions and travel distance.

The court emphasized the importance of promoting the child's relationship with both parents despite high parental conflict.

The respondent brought a motion seeking relief for alleged breaches of court orders and non-compliance with disclosure rules under the Family Law Rules, and an unopposed order for non-party disclosure.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing compliance.

The court granted the unopposed non-party disclosure order for TD Waterhouse records, finding it relevant and proportional to equalization issues.

However, the court dismissed the balance of the respondent's motion, finding the additional disclosure requests excessive, unnecessary, irrelevant, and/or disproportionate, particularly those concerning the applicant's prior divorce, which were deemed a "fishing expedition." The court emphasized proportionality and the primary objective of the Family Law Rules in balancing full disclosure with efficiency.

Costs were reserved, with submissions to follow.

This is a costs decision following a trial concerning child and spousal support and business equalization.

The applicant sought substantial costs on a full recovery basis, while the respondent sought no costs or costs from the applicant.

The court found mixed success at trial and that neither party's offer to settle met the criteria for enhanced costs.

While no finding of bad faith was made, the respondent's conduct during trial, including making collateral attacks on the applicant's character and altering email evidence, was deemed unreasonable.

Consequently, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $17,500 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable immediately, reflecting the applicant's greater success on major issues and the respondent's unreasonable behaviour.

This case involved a trial to determine the termination date for child support for two adult children and the calculation of retroactive child support and Section 7 expenses.

The Applicant sought to terminate support earlier, arguing the children were independent.

The Respondent sought continued support until November 2020 and significant retroactive payments.

The court found the children remained "children of the marriage" due to "other causes" including transition periods and delayed adulthood, extending support until November 30, 2020.

The court imputed income to the Applicant for 2017 due to underemployment and ordered substantial retroactive child support and a portion of Section 7 expenses, while disallowing others deemed unreasonable or unnecessary.

The Respondent brought a motion seeking joint decision-making responsibility and a shared 2-2-3 parenting time schedule for the child.

The Applicant opposed this, seeking sole decision-making and primary residence, with the Respondent maintaining the existing temporary parenting schedule.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion, granting the Applicant temporary sole decision-making and maintaining the current parenting schedule.

The decision considered the high conflict, lack of trust, and outstanding criminal charges between the parties, concluding that a shared arrangement was not in the child's best interests at that time.

The Applicant Mother brought an urgent interim motion seeking permission to remain in South Carolina with the children, having left Canada due to alleged family violence and coercive controlling behaviour by the Respondent Father.

Despite procedural irregularities regarding the formal notice of motion, the court deemed the motion properly before it.

The court considered the serious allegations of abuse, the Applicant's role as primary caregiver, and the children's best interests, particularly in light of the Divorce Act's provisions on family violence and relocation.

The Respondent's denials were found to be minimizations and deflections.

The court extended the temporary order allowing the Applicant and children to remain in South Carolina, finding it unsafe for them to return to Ontario at this time.

The Applicant sought an order for disclosure from and leave to question non-parties (the Respondent's son and accountant) regarding the Respondent's assets and income, particularly concerning a family trust (Simcoe Group Trust) which the Applicant suspected was used to shield wealth and decrease Net Family Property (NFP).

The Applicant argued this information was crucial for equalization and support issues and that the Respondent had been vague in his own disclosure.

The Respondent and non-parties opposed, asserting that substantial disclosure had already been provided.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion for non-party disclosure and questioning, finding that the Applicant had not met the objective test under Family Law Rules 19(11) and 20(5), which requires more than suspicion and emphasizes proportionality, privacy interests of non-parties, and avoiding fishing expeditions.

The court also dismissed the Applicant's request to remove the matter from the trial sittings, stressing the need for the long-standing family litigation to proceed to trial for finality.

The Applicant sought temporary spousal support and child support (s. 7 expenses), while the Respondent sought equal parenting time.

The court imputed an income of $30,000 to the Applicant and $84,000 to the Respondent, ordering the Respondent to pay $201 per month in temporary spousal support and 72% of s. 7 expenses.

Regarding parenting time, the court found the Applicant's proposed restrictive schedule unsupported by evidence and ordered a more expansive schedule for the Respondent, including alternate weekends and every Wednesday overnight, while maintaining the Applicant as the primary residential parent.

The parties were referred to mediation for a comprehensive parenting plan.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and permission to relocate with the parties' seven-year-old child from Innisfil to Brooklin, Ontario.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought primary residence if the mother moved.

The court found a history of high conflict and poor communication, largely driven by the father, making joint decision-making unworkable.

Relying on the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendations and the mother's history as the primary caregiver, the court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and permitted the relocation.

The parenting schedule was adjusted to provide the father with alternate weekends and shared holidays.

The court also resolved child support issues, setting ongoing support and crediting the father for past overpayments.

The respondent estate trustee brought a motion to question the applicant's former family law counsel regarding the applicant's state of mind and receipt of legal advice prior to signing a separation agreement.

The applicant sought to set aside the agreement on grounds of duress and lack of independent legal advice, but opposed the questioning, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The court found that the applicant impliedly waived privilege by putting her state of mind and lack of legal advice at issue.

The court ordered the applicant's former counsel to attend for questioning and limited the questioning of the deceased's former counsel to the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement.

The Applicant Mother sought a court order to relocate the primary residence of her three children to North Bay, Ontario, citing a housing crisis and eviction in her current location of Orillia.

The Respondent Father opposed the motion, arguing the Applicant failed to provide proper notice and raised concerns about her stability and the children's best interests.

The court found the Applicant's reasons for relocation compelling, particularly the lack of affordable housing and the Respondent's failure to consistently pay child support.

The court determined that the relocation was in the children's best interests, noting the Respondent's lack of a viable alternative parenting plan and his reluctance to take on greater responsibilities.

The motion to relocate was granted, and the parties were ordered to share transportation for the Respondent's parenting time.

The Dnaagdawenmag Binnoojiiyag Child and Family Services (DBCFS), the Respondent Mother, and the Respondent Father each brought motions to vary a temporary supervision order concerning the child, L.T.C., following the Mother's discharge from a mothering house due to dishonesty and a positive drug test.

The court found a material change in circumstances.

While the Agency and Mother sought to continue the Mother's primary care under supervision, the Father sought equal shared care.

The court, applying the legal tests for varying temporary placement orders, found the Father's plan for shared care to be more comprehensive and in the child's best interests, providing greater accountability for both parents and opportunities for the Agency to assess parenting capacity.

The court ordered a week-about shared care arrangement under the supervision of the Agency and both maternal and paternal grandmothers.