“At trial, the father sought to lead evidence about how the child support term in the Joint Agreement was negotiated, and what the parties intended. Although he gave evidence that was relevant to the interpretation of the terms of the agreement which was admitted for the purpose of explaining the surrounding circumstances to the agreement, his subjective evidence of the parties intentions in negotiations was contrary to the parol evidence rule and inadmissible for this purpose: Sattva at paras 59-61; 2356802 Ontario Corp. v. 285 Spadina SPV Inc., 2022 ONSC 7318 at para 53. The purpose of the parol evidence rule is to achieve finality and certainty in contractual obligations, and to hamper a party’s ability to use fabricated or unreliable evidence to attack a written contract: Sattva at para 59, citing United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 579 v. Bradco Construction Ltd., 1993 CanLII 88 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 316 at 341-42. Applying the parol evidence rule, the father’s evidence of the surrounding circumstances could not add to, subtract from, vary, or contradict the words of the written agreement: Ibid; 235 Ontario Corp. at para 53.”
Month: October 2026
October 5, 2026 – Certificate of Pending Litigation
“There is no disagreement about the applicable test. In order to obtain a certificate of pending litigation, the requesting party must have a triable claim to an interest in the land. He does not have to show that he will succeed. Certain equitable considerations also apply.
In this matter, they are:
a. whether the property is unique;
b. the ease or difficulty in calculating damages;
c. whether damages would be satisfactory compensation;
d. the presence or absence of a willing purchaser; and
e. the harm to both parties if the certificate is or is not granted.
The onus is on the respondent to show that there is no triable issue.”
October 2, 2026 – When A Parent Faces Charges In A Parenting Dispute
“A parent who faces criminal charges in a parenting dispute faces a very difficult conundrum: while the complainant parent may provide a detailed account of alleged events which resulted in charges being laid, the accused parent in a criminal trial has an ongoing right to silence. The accused parent is also presumed innocent, and it is the Crown who bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused parent often cannot fully respond to (or even address) the allegations in the family law context without potentially compromising their defence in the criminal matter. This Catch-22 situation for the accused parent is one that must be considered when assessing the evidence of the criminal allegation in the family law dispute (see C. v. C., 2024 ONSC 4319, at paras 65-78).
October 1, 2026 – Interim vs Final Orders and Divisional Court vs Court of Appeal
“The mother argues that this court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the Vaccination Order was made under the Divorce Act and because its effect is final. She submits that vaccinating a child is an irreversible act.
Based on the Form 8 Application, I accept that this aspect of the order was made under the federal Divorce Act. As such, it would not be caught by s. 19(1)(a.1) of the CJA, which gives the Divisional Court jurisdiction to hear appeals from final orders of the Family Court that were made only under provincial legislation. An appeal from a final order under the federal Divorce Act lies to this court: Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONSC 1569, 11 R.F.L. (8th) 69, at para. 33. However, this does not end the inquiry. Contrary to the mother’s submission, this court does not have jurisdiction over all appeals arising from the Divorce Act. This court only has jurisdiction if the order appealed from is also final and therefore not captured by s. 19(1)(b) of the CJA: Goldberg v. Goldberg (1989), 68 O.R. (2d) 124 (H.C.); see also Elgner v. Elgner, 2011 ONCA 483, 105 O.R. (3d) 721, leave to appeal refused, [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 341. In my view, the decision in this case was interlocutory and this court therefore does not have jurisdiction.
The motion judge made the order in the context of a motion to decide various issues between the parties on an interim basis. This is evident from the notice of motion, which seeks interim relief. This is also evident from the disposition paragraph in the motion judge’s decision that states that the orders are made on a temporary basis. Finally, while the parties have not yet obtained an issued order from the court, the form approved between them is for a temporary order.”