Recent Cases
Parenting Time: An Urgent Matter?
J.A.D. v J.C. 2024 ONCJ 108
Issues: Is the father's parenting time an urgent matter which should be addressed in advance of a Case Conference? If urgency is determined, what parenting order is in the child's best interest? Ruling: It is in the child's best interest to impose a "without prejudice" order that restores contact between the father and son.
Supervised Parenting Time
Y.S. v. J.S. 2024 ONSC 1028
Issues: Father seeking unsupervised parenting time with his young children. Mother wishes for Father to have supervised parenting given that he is facing 13 criminal charges, including assault and sexual assault of Mother, assault of child, and others. Analysis: too much to include here but you may find it helpful to read it. Ruling: Supervised parenting is necessary
Suspended Parenting Time
H.R.E v H.S. 2024 ABKB 196
Issues: Father dissatisfied with results of a PN8 (practice note 8), sought to have parenting revert back to shared parenting rather than Mother being primary caregiver. Mother is seeking to suspend Father's parenting time due to his problematic behavior. Findings: Father threatened the court-appointed PN8 evaluator. Father was in breach of the PN8 order. Father routinely disparaged Mother in the children's presence. Father shared details of litigation with the children. Father's behavior has caused the children distress. Ruling: Father's parenting time suspended and must pay Mother's costs.
Child Support Arrears
Edden v Foley, 2024 ABKB 48
Issues: Dad failed to provide consistent and timely full financial disclosure to Mom.Dad received income increases from 2011-2015 & didn’t reflect these increases in his child support payments. Background: Dad’s approximate net worth = $637,000. Dad has multiple sources of funds from which to pay retro child support: •HELOC (home equity line of credit) •Rental property •Property sale proceeds •Liquid assets •Shareholder loan receivable Findings: Mom offered proposals that would have cleared arrears by end of 2023. Child is 14 ½ yrs and could use the support now. Periodic payments run the risk the child ‘ages out’ before arrears are paid in full. Dad will not experience hardship by paying child support arrears but even if he did, paying support to Mom & child is more pressing than mitigating any hardship Dad may experience. Dad enjoyed the time value of the support amounts he failed to pay and will continue to reap the benefits because Mom didn’t request interest on arrears. Ruling: Dad is to pay an immediate lump sum payment of $102,000 of child support arrears to Mom. The Court ordered immediate payment in full due to the inability of the parties to agree on an immediate or scheduled payments. Child support arears is to be registered at the Land Titles office against the titles of 2 of Dad’s properties. Court was concerned about underpayment or non-payment due to Dad’s history of non-disclosure and non-payment.
Issue: Appellant Dad failed to provide financial disclosure (court-ordered) so chambers judge ordered Dad to pay Mom $3200 of interim spousal support per month. He filed a appeal challenging said interim spousal support interim order. Analysis: Based on the information available to the chambers judge, the order of monthly $3200 spousal support payments for compensatory and non-compensatory support was justified. Given that Dad didn’t provide the court-ordered disclosure, he had no right to complain about the amount. It isn’t uncommon for chambers judges to make such rulings based on incomplete information, until the matter goes to trial. Ruling: Appeal dismissed.
Equalization payment - Appeal
(despite no financial disclosure provided)
Cohen v. Cohen, 2024 ONCA 114
Issue: Mom (appellant) appeals order for equalization payment to Dad of ½ the net proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home. Home was in Mom’s name only. Reason for appeal: Mom feels the trial judge erred in ordering the equalization payment given that Dad failed to provide any financial disclosure during the proceeds and also never requested equalization. Analysis: ONCA (Ontario Court of Appeal) agreed that the trial judge erred in their finding that Dad was entitled to an equalization payment. ONCA agreed there was no basis for the trial judge to order an equalization payment because Dad failed to provide financial disclosure. Ruling: Appeal was allowed. There is to be no equalization payment owing to either party. The remaining net proceeds of the matrimonial house sale shall be released immediately to Mom. Mom is entitled to costs of the appeal of $5000.
Read Recent Blog Posts Here
Subscribe to my Blog
Enter your email address to receive the latest news and updates