This recent decision serves as a cautionary tale to those who disobey disclosure orders. In his decision, Price J. ordered that the Respondent father pay $24,900 for his failure to disclose his financial information within a reasonable period of time.
McClintock v. Karam, 2017 ONCA 277: This recent decision from the Court of Appeal causes some confusion with respect to the characterization of stay orders for the purposes of appeal, and the requirements for an exception to the general rule that an order granting a stay is final, but an order refusing a stay is interlocutory.
In this case, the Applicant Husband brought a motion for an order pursuant to section 2(8) of the Family Law Act (FLA), extending time to bring an application for an equalization payment pursuant to section 7(3) of the FLA. The Respondent Wife opposed the motion on the basis that the Husband was not able to satisfy the grounds in section 2(8) and that he failed to file a claim for equitable relief within two years as required under the Limitations Act.
In this appeal from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that structured settlement annuity payments are to be treated as income rather than property.
This recent decision by Justice Fryer of the Superior Court of Justice is a well written decision that provides a very good summary of the law of costs. However, it also serves as a caution to family law litigants as to the costs of litigation, and reminds litigants that even if they feel as though they were largely successful with respect to the outcome of the case, this does not necessarily mean that they will be receiving their costs of the litigation on a full indemnity basis.
In this recent decision of the Superior Court of Justice, the court considers the appropriate amount of damages to award when there is been an invasion of privacy within a domestic relationship. Further, the Court considers the sum of damages to award when considering incidents of domestic violence.
This appeal concerns an application by a minor for a declaration that she has withdrawn from parental control. The father of a 17-year-old girl appeals a declaration that she has withdrawn from parental control.
This recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal provides guidance for family law litigants and counsel with respect to the jurisdiction for subsidiary dispute resolution. The Court is firm in their finding that in high conflict cases, best practice mandates that the same judge continue to hear subsidiary disputes.
This decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal canvasses whether an Ontario Court has the jurisdiction to award child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property after a foreign court has issued a divorce.
This case serves as an important reminder that custody and access issues must remain child-focused, and adjustments to a parenting plan must be determined within the scope of the child’s needs, and not the needs of the parents.