Tammy W. Law

The applicant brought a motion to enforce minutes of settlement resolving equalization and lump sum spousal support following a family law settlement conference.

The court held that non-compliance with the formal witnessing and signature requirements for domestic contracts under the Family Law Act did not preclude enforcement of an authorized litigation settlement reached through counsel.

Applying the objective settlement-formation inquiry, the court found a meeting of the minds, consensus on all essential terms, and no condition that the agreement depend on settlement of collateral issues.

The respondent failed to establish that enforcement of the lump sum spousal support term would be unconscionable, improvident, or unjust, particularly given the negotiated job-loss risk language and the respondent's continued affirmation of the settlement after anticipating an income reduction.

The motion was granted and the settlement terms were enforced.

The father brought a motion for the return of his two children from British Columbia to Ontario after the mother relocated them without his consent or a court order, in breach of a prior final order.

The mother sought retroactive authorization for the temporary relocation.

The court found that the mother failed to meet her burden of proving the move was in the children's best interests, noting her repeated breaches of court orders, failure to provide statutory notice, and evidence suggesting she was actively interfering with the children's relationship with their father.

The court ordered the children to be returned to Ontario by the end of the school year and directed the parties to immediately commence reunification therapy.

The applicant brought a motion in a family proceeding seeking the judge's recusal on the basis of reasonable apprehension of bias arising from comments made during an earlier motion and findings in a prior endorsement concerning the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court applied the high-threshold test for apprehension of bias and held that the impugned comments reflected ordinary case management, evidentiary rulings, and findings grounded in the evidentiary record, not a closed mind or predisposition.

The motion was dismissed, costs of $3,000 were awarded to the respondent, and the settlement conference was adjourned on consent with directions for updated financial disclosure and response to a request for information.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to return to the matrimonial home and for equal parenting time.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion for exclusive possession of the home.

The court found a history of family violence and severe litigation abuse by the respondent, who repeatedly flouted court orders, harassed court staff, and filed meritless motions.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding his proposed plan unrealistic and contrary to the children's best interests.

The court granted the applicant exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and imposed strict case management orders to curb the respondent's abusive litigation conduct.

The applicant sought an extension of time under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act to bring a claim for equalization of net family properties, conceding that the limitation period had expired.

The parties had signed a separation agreement in 2019 and were divorced in 2022.

The applicant argued that his delay was in good faith due to his mental health conditions and limited English proficiency.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant's delay was not incurred in good faith, as he had multiple opportunities to inquire about his rights but chose inaction, amounting to willful blindness.

The respondent's cross-motion for security for costs was also dismissed as unnecessary.

A pre-trial motion concerning the admissibility and use of will-say statements prepared by counsel for the applicant's witnesses.

The respondent sought an order permitting cross-examination of the witnesses on their will-says, or alternatively, requiring the statements to be translated and signed by the witnesses, or permitting cross-examination of the applicant on the preparation of the statements.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the will-say statements were provided in compliance with the undertakings given, were sufficiently detailed and meaningful, and that the respondent was not prejudiced by their late service.

The court clarified the proper use of will-say statements as disclosure tools rather than evidence, and protected communications between the applicant and her counsel regarding the preparation of the statements under solicitor-client privilege.

A motion brought by Hamilton Child and Family Supports seeking an extension of time under section 122 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 for a Métis child to remain in society care beyond the statutory 12-month limit.

The child's mother, who was incarcerated for manslaughter, has been released and is making substantial progress toward reunification.

The court granted a six-month extension, interpreting section 122 in light of the remedial nature of the federal legislation governing Indigenous child welfare and the principles of cultural continuity and substantive equality.

This decision addresses a motion by the paternal grandmother, M.P., to be added as a party to child protection proceedings concerning K.F.-W. The court reviews the statutory and discretionary bases for party status under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and the Family Law Rules.

The court finds that M.P. does not meet the definition of "parent" under the Act and that adding her as a party is not in the best interests of the child, would unduly complicate and delay the proceedings, and would increase conflict.

The motion is dismissed.

This decision concerns a motion to change child support and section 7 expenses brought by the paternal grandparents of J.G. against his mother, Kristy Ferreira.

The court found that the grandparents, having demonstrated a settled intention to treat J.G. as their child, are "parents" under the Family Law Act and thus subject to the Child Support Guidelines.

The court determined the appropriate sharing of retroactive and ongoing section 7 expenses, the child’s contribution to post-secondary costs, and the repayment schedule for retroactive support, emphasizing proportionality to household incomes and the best interests of the child.

This decision resolves a family law trial between Louris Korie and Henri Korie, addressing property division, support, unjust enrichment, a restraining order, and costs.

The court orders the equalization payment to be made by pension rollover, dismisses the unjust enrichment and restraining order claims, and sets the commencement of support to the month after the sale of the matrimonial home.

Costs are divided, with the applicant ordered to pay $4,000 to the respondent.

This decision addresses urgent motions regarding the residential schedule of four children, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and a proposed nesting arrangement following the separation of Laura Anne Fennema and Trevor William Harry Fennema.

The court found the parenting time issues urgent due to the children’s removal from their home and school, but dismissed other requests for lack of urgency.

The court declined to order exclusive possession or nesting, primarily because of the Applicant’s criminal release conditions and the practicalities of the family farm.

The court ordered the children’s immediate return to their home with the Respondent and set a detailed interim parenting schedule, emphasizing the children’s best interests and stability.