Stephen M. Grant

The appellant appealed an interlocutory order dismissing his motion to strike the respondent's family law application for spousal support and equitable relief.

The appellant argued the claims were barred by a 2005 Nevada divorce and an ongoing civil action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the motion to strike, finding triable issues regarding the validity of the foreign divorce and noting the family law equitable claims were distinct from the civil action.

However, the court granted the appeal to dispense with the appellant's attendance at the Mandatory Information Program due to his age and residency in Hong Kong.

The mother brought a motion for a stay of an order varying an interim parenting schedule pending her motion for leave to appeal.

The motion judge had varied the schedule to increase the father's parenting time based on observations from a Section 30 assessment report.

The Divisional Court applied the three-part test for a stay and found that the mother failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried, as the motion judge's discretionary decision was well-founded and did not conflict with established case law.

The court also found no irreparable harm to the child and that the balance of convenience favoured the new schedule.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The appellant sought to set aside a separation agreement executed four years earlier under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act on the basis that the respondent failed to disclose significant assets.

The trial judge found that while the respondent had indeed failed to disclose certain family business interests, shareholder loan payments, and capital income from share sales, these assets were not "significant" within the meaning of section 56(4) in the context of the settlement negotiations.

The trial judge determined that the non-disclosed assets had no bearing on equalization and were irrelevant to support, as the parties had agreed to support based on an income figure substantially higher than the respondent's actual income at the time of separation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the application.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision that granted partial summary judgment in favour of the respondent on the issue of non-disclosure of the appellant Neil's interest in a family trust established by his father Solomon.

The motion judge found that Neil had deliberately failed to disclose his interest in the trust to Randi when they entered into a separation agreement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, finding that the trust indenture had been disclosed to Randi's counsel and financial advisors, and that Randi was deemed to have knowledge of Neil's interest through her counsel.

The court held that Neil's omission from his financial statements could not transform actual disclosure into non-disclosure under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

The court also found that even if there had been non-disclosure, the asset was not significant as it constituted excluded property under the Family Law Act.

The claims for conspiracy to commit fraud, deceit, and punitive damages against Solomon were also dismissed as they could not be sustained on the evidence.

Following a lengthy family law trial where both parties experienced divided success, the applicant sought costs on the basis of the respondent's alleged bad faith and failure to disclose.

The respondent sought reimbursement of a $140,000 interim disbursement payment.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including the parties' offers to settle and the respondent's unreasonable conduct.

The court concluded that the respondent's conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith and, given the divided success and the offers to settle, ordered that no costs be awarded to either party.

The respondent's request for reimbursement was also denied.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion to change spousal support.

The parties had been married for 21 years and reached a consent order in 2012 providing for $12,000 per month in spousal support plus 27% of incentive employment income.

The motion judge dismissed the motion to change, finding that while the respondent's income had increased, no additional compensatory support was warranted.

The appellant argued the motion judge misunderstood the principles of compensatory support under Moge v. Moge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no legal error, error in principle, or significant misapprehension of evidence.

Following a trial judgment that terminated child support for the parties' two children, the court determined the ongoing quantum of spousal support.

The parties' separation agreement provided for a combined unallocated support payment of $10,000 net per month.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $11,000 gross per month in spousal support effective January 1, 2018, and dismissed the respondent's request for a retroactive order and reimbursement of alleged overpayments.

The applicant sought to set aside a 2010 Separation Agreement, alleging the respondent failed to disclose significant corporate assets and that she signed under duress.

Alternatively, she sought to set aside the support provisions.

The respondent sought to uphold the agreement but requested extensive variations to support, including retroactive termination of child support and imputation of income to the applicant.

The court dismissed the application to set aside the agreement, finding the non-disclosure was not significant in the context of the negotiations and there was no duress.

The court also dismissed most of the respondent's variation requests due to a lack of a material change in circumstances, but granted the termination of child support for the two adult children who no longer lived with the applicant.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from orders arising from summary judgment motions, while also commencing appeals in the Court of Appeal.

Noting potential jurisdictional issues regarding whether the underlying orders were final or interlocutory, the Divisional Court adjourned the motions for leave to appeal and ordered the parties to provide supplementary written submissions on the jurisdictional question.

The applicant sought to adjourn the scheduled trial date in a complex family law and trust proceeding.

The respondent opposed the adjournment.

The court found that the trial date had to be vacated because the parties were not ready, there had been no meaningful settlement conference, and updated financial statements had not been provided.

The court vacated the trial date and scheduled a case conference to set a new timetable and trial date.

The respondents (former husband and his father) brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant's (former wife's) claim that a Separation Agreement should be set aside due to material misrepresentation and non-disclosure regarding the former husband's beneficial interest in a family trust.

The applicant opposed this motion and brought a cross-motion for a preservation order.

The court dismissed the respondents' motion for summary judgment, finding that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the materiality of the non-disclosure.

The court also granted partial summary judgment in favour of the applicant, finding that the former husband deliberately failed to disclose his interest in the trust and that the former wife did not have actual knowledge of this non-disclosure.

The cross-motion for a preservation order was dismissed.

The remaining issue for trial is the materiality of the non-disclosure and the appropriate remedy.

The appellant appealed orders requiring him to pay retroactive and prospective spousal support based on a material change in circumstances.

The parties had entered into a separation agreement that suspended support after the appellant lost his job, but allowed for a review upon a material change.

The trial judge found a material change when the appellant obtained new employment and their daughter ceased to be a child of the marriage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's interpretation of the agreement, her assessment of the evidence, or her application of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Following the dismissal of the applicant mother's motion to register the parties' child in the National Ballet School, the respondent father sought costs of $17,513 on a full indemnity basis.

The applicant argued for a no-costs award, citing her good faith and the respondent's failure to make an offer to settle or provide financial disclosure.

The court found that both parties acted in good faith and that the binary nature of the motion precluded a reasonable offer to settle.

The court awarded the respondent costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $8,500.

The parties were unable to resolve the issue of costs following an appeal.

After reviewing the submissions, the Court of Appeal ordered that there be no order as to costs of the appeal.

The applicant sought an order to permit her to register her child, Kalle, in the National Ballet School (NBS) for the 2016/2017 year.

The respondent opposed this motion, arguing that Kalle's weekend classes would interfere with his limited access time with both children.

The court considered the child's best interests and the "maximum contact principle" finding insufficient evidence that Kalle's participation in the NBS Associates Program, which is not the professional program, should override the respondent's access time.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his motion to vary a final custody order to implement a week-about residential schedule.

The trial judge found no material change in circumstances since the order was made.

On appeal, the father argued the mother's concession of one extra day of access constituted an acknowledgment of a material change, and that his changed employment circumstances warranted a variation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the mother's concession was contemplated by the original order and did not constitute a material change, and found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the father's employment changes.

The mother's motion to adduce fresh evidence was also denied.

The respondent (mother) brought a motion seeking temporary and permanent leave to relocate with the children from the Region of Waterloo to the City of Oakville in the Region of Halton, and to change their school.

The applicant (father) brought a cross-motion to dismiss the relocation request and sought expanded access.

The court granted the respondent's motion for relocation, finding it to be in the children's best interests, considering the mother's role as primary caregiver, her support network in Oakville, and the minimal impact on the father's access.

The court also adjusted the parenting schedule, increasing the father's access time on alternate weekends.

The applicant sought a non-dissipation and preservation order under sections 12 and 40 of the Family Law Act to restrain the respondent from dealing with assets, particularly shares in his private corporations, pending trial.

The court considered the strength of the applicant's case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm.

While the applicant had an unassailable claim for spousal support and an arguable case for an equalization payment, the court found no risk of dissipation by the respondent, who had complied with temporary support orders and demonstrated efforts to grow his business.

Granting the order would severely cripple the respondent's companies, causing irreparable harm.

The motion was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay agreed-upon costs, to be set off against future payments.

The court issued an endorsement to clarify a previous order enforcing signed Minutes of Settlement between the parties.

The parties had disagreed on the terms of the formal order and attempted to insert newly negotiated terms regarding their separation agreement into the draft order.

The court rejected these additions, noting that the formal order had already been settled in the previous endorsement.

The court directed the respondent's counsel to submit the original draft order with only the specific amendments previously ordered, and clarified a prior costs award.

The applicant was unsuccessful on a motion for leave to appeal.

The respondent sought costs of the motion on a substantial or partial indemnity basis, while the applicant argued no costs should be ordered.

The court found that the issues did not transcend the interest of the parties and a costs order was warranted under the Courts of Justice Act and applicable rules.

The court awarded costs to the respondent fixed at $2,500 on a partial indemnity basis.