“Of course, I am mindful that forcing the parents to make decisions jointly could inflame their conflict which is not in the daughter’s best interests. Therefore, the parties shall immediately retain and participate in parent coaching services, and shall provide proof of the same before seeking any relief before this court. A parenting coach can provide guidance on the selection of the family therapist, on parenting challenges, and can help with managing conflict. The parents shall provide the parenting coach with a copy of the OCL Report, the endorsements and orders in this matter, and a copy of this decision. The parents shall share the cost of the parent coaching proportionally.”
Month: August 2026
August 10, 2026 – The Test For Unjust Enrichment
“The test for unjust enrichment requires me to consider the following:
(1) whether Sukhminder was an enriched;
(2) whether there was a corresponding deprivation to the Parminder and Amandeep; and
(3) whether there was a juristic reason for the benefit and corresponding detriment: Moore v. Sweet, 2018 SCC 52, [2018] 3 S.C.R. 303 at paras. 35 to 59, 63, and 83; Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10 (CanLII), [2011] 1 SCR 269 (S.C.C.) at paras. 30-31.
The question is largely economic at the first and second stage, while the third stage engages relevant legal and policy issues: Moore v. Sweet, at para. 41.
The requirement to show an enrichment and a corresponding deprivation are closely related, being “the same thing from different perspectives” and “essentially two sides of the same coin”: Moore v. Sweet, at para. 41. The Supreme Court of Canada has been clear that the acid test is whether the defendant becomes richer in circumstances where the plaintiff becomes poorer: Moore v. Sweet, at para. 44. The concept of “loss” therefore captures a benefit that was never in the plaintiff’s possession but that the court finds would have accrued for their benefit had it not been received by the defendant instead: Citadel General Assurance Co. v. Lloyds Bank Canada, 1997 CanLII 334 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 805, at para. 30.”
August 7, 2026 – The Objective of Self-Sufficiency
“When considering the duration of spousal support claims once entitlement is established, the court should consider the objective of self-sufficiency set out in s. 15.2(4) of the Divorce Act.
In Fisher v. Fisher, 2008 ONCA 11 (CanLII), 2008 232 O.A.C. 213, at para. 53, the Court of Appeal observed:
Self-sufficiency, with its connotation of economic independence, is a relative concept. It is not achieved simply because a former spouse can meet basic expenses on a particular amount of income; rather, self-sufficiency relates to the ability to support a reasonable standard of living. It is to be assessed in relation to the economic partnership the parties enjoyed and could sustain during cohabitation, and that they can reasonably anticipate after separation…. Thus, a determination of self-sufficiency requires consideration of the parties’ present and potential incomes, their standard of living during marriage, the efficacy of any suggested steps to increase a party’s means, the parties’ likely post-separation circumstances (including the impact of equalization of their property), the duration of their cohabitation and any other relevant factors.
The Court of Appeal in Reisman v. Reisman, 2014 ONCA 109 at para 28 discussed the objective of self-sufficiency:
… However, promoting self-sufficiency cannot be the only consideration that determines the duration of a support order. The court also has to take into account the recipient spouse’s age, skills, education, opportunities for retraining and, importantly, her realistic prospects of being able to find a job that enables her to become self-sufficient.”
August 6, 2026 – “Serious Harm” and Section 23(b) of the CLRA
“For the legal system in Iran to qualify as “serious harm”, that harm would have to be clearly established on the evidence. It is not enough to point to differences in the law and suggest that a parent may have different rights in a foreign jurisdiction vis-à-vis Ontario. The serious harm test in s. 23 of the CLRA, which was implemented to protect the safety of children, must not be reduced to a means for Ontario courts to prefer this province’s system of justice over those of foreign jurisdictions under the guise of child safety: See N. v. F., at para 79. Accordingly, the fact that the law in Iran may not be as child-focussed or based on the children’s best interests as it is in Ontario does not equate to the children suffering “serious harm” if the court in Iran has jurisdiction over parenting matters, as contemplated by s.23 of the CLRA.”
August 5, 2026 – Credibility and Reliability
“Second, the appellant asserts that the trial judge erred by failing to address concerns about the respondents’ reliability, focusing only on their credibility.
I do not accept this submission. A trial judge’s determination to accept a witness’s evidence includes an implicit assessment of its accuracy or reliability. The trial judge is presumed to have correctly applied the law in accepting a witness’s evidence, including the relationship between credibility and reliability: G.F., at para. 82. Assessing reliability is “within the province of the trial judge” who has “the opportunity to hear and observe all of the witnesses”: R. v. Slatter, 2019 ONCA 807, 148 O.R. (3d) 81, at para. 118, per Pepall J.A. (dissenting), aff’d 2020 SCC 36. If the trial judge was alive to reliability concerns, considered those concerns, and assessed the witness’s reliability and credibility, the trial judge’s assessment attracts deference: R. v. Sanichar, 2012 ONCA 117, 280 C.C.C. (3d) 500, at para. 82, per Laskin J.A. (dissenting), aff’d, 2013 SCC 4, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 54.”
August 4, 2026 – Striking a Party’s Pleadings
“An order to strike a party’s pleadings is a drastic remedy that should only be granted in exceptional circumstances and when no other remedy would suffice: Chiaramonte v. Chiaramonte, 2013 ONCA 641, para. 31. In determining whether to strike the pleadings of non-complaint party, a court must (i) consider the substantial disclosure already made; (ii) itemize what disclosure the party had failed to provide; (iii) make a finding of willful disobedience of the order; and (iv) consider proportionality: Manchanda v. Thethi, 2016 ONCA 909, para. 31.
In any event, regardless of the complexity of a spouse’s financial situation, a repeated failure to comply with an order compelling financial disclosure may, even if there is partial compliance, amount to a deliberate attempt the to frustrate the determination of a spouse’s claims for support and equalization: Mullins, supra.”