Sydney Louise Bunting

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his motion to set aside a default order regarding parenting and child support.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in applying the legal test to set aside a default judgment, specifically regarding the merits of his case and potential prejudice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in law or principle and concluding the motion judge properly considered the evidentiary record and all relevant factors, including the appellant's failure to genuinely engage in the proceedings.

In this family law appeal, the appellant sought to enforce a daily financial penalty for non-disclosure, which had accumulated to $224,000.

The motion judge declined to enforce the disproportionate penalty and left the matter to the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal found the order to be interlocutory and thus not appealable, quashing the appeal.

The applicant brought a motion regarding the child's school enrollment, which was decided in favour of the respondent.

The parties submitted written submissions on costs.

The court found that while the respondent was successful, both parties had engaged in unreasonable conduct.

The court fixed costs at $8,000 in favour of the respondent, but ordered that this amount be set off against $8,000 in costs that the respondent already owed to the applicant.

The applicant father brought a motion to enroll the parties' six-year-old child in a French Immersion program in Mississauga, contrary to the respondent mother's choice of a public school in North York.

The parties shared joint custody under a previous order which gave the mother final decision-making authority over education if they could not agree.

The court found that the mother's proposed school was in the child's best interests, noting the child's speech delays, the mother's proximity to the school, and the availability of before and after school care.

The father's motion regarding the choice of school was dismissed.

On a family law motion, the moving party sought temporary spousal support, temporary child support, and security following the breakdown of a long marriage with one economically dependent spouse and one high-income payor.

The court held that the moving party established prima facie entitlement to interim spousal support under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act, declined to conduct a detailed imputation analysis on the motion, accepted the recipient's actual income, and fixed the payor's income at $508,000 for temporary support purposes.

The court ordered child support of $3,000 monthly retroactive to January 1, 2020, and spousal support retroactive only to August 1, 2020, rejecting claims for set-off based on expenses and declining to adjust support for cross-border tax consequences without expert evidence.

A support deduction order was directed to issue.

The applicant father brought an emergency motion to enforce an existing access order after the respondent mother arbitrarily withheld the child based on unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse.

The court found the mother's actions were motivated by spite and undermined the parenting order.

The court granted the father's motion, ordered the enforcement of the existing parenting order, dismissed the mother's emergency motion, and awarded costs to the father.

The mother left Pakistan with the child without the father's consent or court permission, travelling to Ontario and then British Columbia.

The father applied in Ontario to enforce a Pakistani custody order.

The application judge found British Columbia was the more appropriate forum but simultaneously made a final order declining to recognize the Pakistani order.

The father appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the application judge erred by making a final order on the merits while declining jurisdiction, which invited a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent judgments.

The Ontario order was set aside, allowing the parties to litigate the issues in British Columbia.