Zechariah Weicker Martin

The appellant mother appealed a temporary order granting the respondent father equal parenting time on a week-about basis with their 15-month-old child.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in law by failing to conduct a proper analysis of the best interests of the child under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The motion judge failed to consider the child's young age, the status quo, allegations of family violence, and the AFCC-O Guidelines.

The temporary order was set aside and the matter remitted to a different judge, with an interim graduated parenting schedule put in place.

This appeal concerns a family law dispute involving claims for unjust enrichment arising from a joint family venture and spousal support.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the trial judge’s award of $3,000,000 in damages for unjust enrichment, $365,624 in lump sum spousal support, and $475,000 in costs to the respondent, Katherine Ann Mullin.

The court found that the trial judge properly applied the law regarding unjust enrichment and joint family ventures, and that the evidence supported the findings.

The appeal was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses costs arising from a December 13, 2023 motion where the Applicant mother sought leave to file fresh evidence in an appeal of an arbitration award concerning children's schooling.

The mother was substantially successful on her motion, obtaining leave to file evidence from one therapist and an updated Voice of the Child report, while her request for evidence from a parenting coordinator was dismissed.

The Respondent father's cross-motion was dismissed.

The court found the mother entitled to costs, but not full recovery, due to issues with proportionality and the use of multiple counsel.

The father was ordered to pay $15,000.00 in costs to the mother.

The Applicant sought to set aside a 2006 separation agreement and requested interim spousal support.

The Respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the application.

The court dismissed the Respondent's summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues of fact requiring a trial regarding non-disclosure, unconscionability, duress, and undue influence concerning the separation agreement.

The Applicant's motion for interim spousal support was dismissed without prejudice due to significant delay and lack of assets to repay if the agreement is upheld.

The court ordered a joint settlement/trial management conference to expedite a trial date.

This is an appeal of an arbitration award that changed the children's school from a private institution to a public one due to financial considerations.

The appellant mother alleged errors of law, fact, mixed fact and law, and procedural unfairness by the arbitrator, including failure to give due weight to the children's views, prioritizing finances over best interests, insufficient reasons, judicial notice errors, misapprehension of evidence, and procedural unfairness regarding financial disclosure.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors or errors of law, and upheld the arbitrator's decision, emphasizing deference to arbitral awards in family matters and the holistic consideration of the children's best interests within practical and financial constraints.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking leave to adduce fresh evidence on her appeal of an arbitration award that ordered the parties' two children to change schools.

The mother sought to introduce evidence from the children's therapist and the parenting coordinator, which the arbitrator had previously refused to hear, as well as an updated Voice of the Child report.

Applying the Palmer test with the flexibility required in family law cases involving the best interests of children, the court allowed fresh evidence from the therapist and ordered an updated Voice of the Child report to ensure the appeal judge has current information.

The request to adduce evidence from the parenting coordinator was dismissed.

Following a trial on property and spousal support where the applicant was substantially successful, the applicant sought costs of $848,408.89.

The court found that the respondent acted in bad faith by failing to make proper disclosure, which triggered full recovery costs under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court fixed the costs payable by the respondent to the applicant at $475,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.