Steven M. Fehrle

The court considered an application by Frank Iannace to set aside his late father's will, which disinherited him in favour of his brother, Peter Iannace.

Frank alleged lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence.

The court found a serious issue to be tried regarding undue influence, and granted certificates of pending litigation (CPL) and preservation orders over certain estate assets, but not over a property owned by a corporation.

The court also ordered disclosure and partial indemnity costs.

This appeal concerned an order striking the appellant's pleadings in a family law application due to repeated non-compliance with financial disclosure orders.

The appellant argued the motion judge misinterpreted his position, failed to consider alternative remedies, and did not account for his personal circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the fundamental duty of financial disclosure in family law and finding that, given the appellant's persistent failure to comply, striking the pleadings was an appropriate and necessary remedy under the Family Law Rules.

In a family law trial following a 37-year marriage, the court addressed spousal support, the sale of the matrimonial home, and the equalization of net family property.

The applicant wife, who was self-represented, sought spousal support and an equalization payment.

The respondent husband sought an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act, arguing the applicant had recklessly depleted family assets through a severe gambling addiction.

The court ordered spousal support at 50% of the respondent's pension income.

However, finding that the applicant had lost hundreds of thousands of dollars gambling, the court held that an equal division of net family property would shock the conscience of the court.

The court reduced the equalization payment to zero, ordered the sale of the jointly owned home, and directed a 60/40 split of the sale proceeds in favour of the respondent.

An appeal concerning jurisdiction to award child support and equalization of net family property following a valid foreign divorce.

The appellant, a Canadian resident, was married to the respondent, who resided in China.

The respondent commenced a divorce application in Ontario seeking spousal support, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The appellant subsequently obtained a divorce in China.

The trial judge found that the Ontario Superior Court had jurisdiction to award corollary relief under the Divorce Act despite the foreign divorce.

The Court of Appeal reversed on the Divorce Act issue but upheld jurisdiction under the Family Law Act for child support and equalization.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer brought motions for interim openness orders permitting sibling contact between two children who had been separated for nearly four years.

The respondent adoptive parent opposed the orders, fearing that contact would lead to reintroduction of the biological parent into the child's life.

The court granted the interim orders, finding that the sibling relationship had been previously determined to be valuable and that the failure to maintain contact resulted from administrative and discretionary failures by the child welfare agency and the adoptive parent's resistance, not from any change in the children's best interests.

The court implemented a gradual restoration of contact through letters, cards, and supervised face-to-face meetings.

The applicant, Ms. Cheng, sought to lift a stay of proceedings in Ontario to pursue claims for child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The respondent, Mr. Liu, had previously obtained a divorce in China after initiating proceedings there, which led to the Ontario action being stayed on condition of his cooperation in China.

Mr. Liu breached this condition by providing false financial disclosure to the Chinese court, which subsequently granted the divorce but explicitly declined jurisdiction over economic issues, deferring them to Canada.

The court found that it retained jurisdiction over the corollary relief, distinguishing the precedent of Okmyansky v. Okmyansky.

The decision emphasized that jurisdiction is determined at the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Liu's breach of conditions and fraudulent disclosure, China's explicit declination of jurisdiction, and the doctrine of forum of necessity.

The applicant sought a stay of an interim family arbitration award permitting the respondent to list and sell the matrimonial home prior to trial.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to grant a stay pending an appeal of the arbitration award and concluded that jurisdiction arose under s. 134(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Applying the RJR‑MacDonald test, the court found the appeal raised a serious issue regarding whether the arbitrator failed to address relevant grounds relating to the applicant’s claimed beneficial interest in the property through constructive or resulting trust.

The court determined that an immediate sale could cause irreparable harm by undermining the applicant’s proprietary claims and development potential of the property.

The balance of convenience narrowly favoured preserving the status quo pending the appeal or arbitration trial.

The applicant husband sought a divorce, and the respondent wife sought to set aside their 1996 marriage contract, which waived spousal support and property equalization.

The court found the contract valid under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act, noting the wife received independent legal advice and signed voluntarily despite the husband's failure to provide full financial disclosure.

However, the court set aside the spousal support waiver under section 33(4) of the Family Law Act, finding that enforcing it would result in unconscionable circumstances given the wife's 16-year financial dependence in a traditional marriage.

The applicant husband sought a divorce, and the respondent wife sought to set aside their 1996 marriage contract.

The contract waived spousal support and equalization.

The wife argued she did not understand the contract, signed under duress, and that the husband failed to disclose assets.

The court found the contract valid under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act, noting the wife received independent legal advice and signed voluntarily despite being advised not to.

However, the court set aside the spousal support waiver under s. 33(4) of the Family Law Act, finding that enforcing it after a 16-year traditional marriage where the wife was financially dependent would result in unconscionable circumstances.

The applicant mother and respondent father continued to reside in the matrimonial home with their three children following their separation.

Due to the high-conflict nature of their relationship, the applicant brought a motion for temporary custody or, alternatively, a nesting order.

The respondent opposed the nesting order and sought an adjournment.

The court dismissed the adjournment request to avoid disrupting the children's school year.

Finding that the parents' continued cohabitation was detrimental to the children, the court ordered a temporary nesting arrangement where the children would remain in the matrimonial home and the parents would rotate in and out every seven days.

Motion to change a spousal support order.

The respondent sought to terminate or reduce his spousal support obligation of $1,200 per month (indexed), claiming material change in circumstances including decreased self-employment income due to age and physical ailments, possible end of common-law relationship, and applicant's refusal to utilize her LIRA or accept contributions from their adult daughter.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought a lump sum payment of accumulated arrears.

The court found a material change in circumstances limited to the respondent's ability to earn self-employment income.

The court reduced spousal support to $506 per month based on imputed incomes of $28,479 (respondent) and $14,591.52 (applicant), and increased arrears repayment from $50 to $913 per month.

The court rejected claims to impute income to the applicant and dismissed the applicant's request to prohibit further variation motions.