Month: March 2020

“The appellant also challenges the application judge’s treatment of the LTIP [long-term incentive plan] payment made to the respondent by his employer in November 2003.  The evidence at trial was that on execution of the retirement agreement between the respondent and his employer, the respondent’s unvested options were cancelled in accordance with the company’s usual practice on the departure of a senior executive.  The agreed LTIP payment represented the value of the respondent’s vested options.

In these circumstances, the application judge correctly recognized that s. 13 of Schedule III of the Child Support Guidelines, O. Reg. 391/97 was engaged.  That provision requires that the profits on the exercise of a stock option are to be brought into the recipient’s income in the year of exercise.  This is dispositive of the income allocation issue relating to the LTIP payment.”

         Pomozova v. Mann, 2010 ONCA 212 (CanLII) at 8-9

“A resulting trust arises when title to property is in one party’s name but that party, because he or she is a fiduciary or gave no value for the property, is under an obligation to return it to the original title owner: Pecore, at para. 20.  When a parent gratuitously transfers property to his or her adult child, the law presumes that the child holds the property on resulting trust for the parent: Pecore, at para. 36.  The burden of rebutting the presumption is on the child.  In determining whether the presumption has been rebutted, the trial judge must begin his or her inquiry with the presumption and then weigh all of the evidence in an attempt to ascertain, on a balance of probabilities, the parent transferor’s actual intention at the time of transfer: Sawdon Estate, at paras. 67-71.

The kind of evidence relevant to determining the transferor’s actual intention at the time of transfer depends on the facts of the case: Pecore, at para. 55. A court may consider evidence of the transferor’s conduct after the transfer, so long as it is relevant to the transferor’s intention at the time of the transfer: Pecore, at para. 59.”

Mroz v. Mroz, 2015 ONCA 171 (CanLII) at 72-73

“The next time anyone at Legal Aid Ontario tells you they’re short of money, don’t believe it.  It can’t possibly be true.  Not if they’re funding cases like this.

The facts are simple.  There are no complicated legal issues.  Hardly worth a written endorsement, really.

But every now and then taxpayers ought to be told how their hard earned dollars are spent.

…

At the March 9, 2017 attendance, apart from paying for the lawyers, taxpayers also had to pay for the following government employees to be present in Courtroom #5 to deal with this matter:

a.    A Court Services Officer.

b.    A Court Reporter.

c.    A Court Registrar.

d.    And me.

I have no idea how much the other players in the courtroom get paid.  But as a Superior Court Judge I receive approximately $308,600.00 per year.  So you can see that not even counting overhead charges and administrative staff in the building, every hour of court time is hugely expensive.

Many taxpayers can’t afford their own lawyers, and don’t qualify for free assistance through Legal Aid.  So they end up representing themselves in court.  Or facing financial reality and settling without going to court. 

But when you pay no taxes and Legal Aid gives you a free lawyer, there’s no incentive to be sensible.  Why worry about the cost when some unsuspecting taxpayer out there is footing the bill?

Which brings us to my particular frustration with this case.”

Abdulaali v. Salih, 2017 ONSC 1609 (CanLII) at 1-3 & 17-21

“With respect to under-employment or unemployment, the leading case in this area is the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Drygala v. Pauli, 2002 CanLII 41868 (ON CA), [2002] 61 O.R. (3d) 711 (C.A.).  In Crowe v. McIntyre, 2014 ONSC 7106, Chappel J. summarized Drygala along with other cases since, as follows:

[31] The Ontario Court of Appeal addressed the issue of imputation of income pursuant to section 19(1)(a) of the Guidelines on the basis of intentional unemployment or under-employment in Drygala v. Pauli.  The following general principles derive from that decision and other cases which have considered section 19(1)(a):

a. Section 1 of the Guidelines stipulates that one of the objectives of the Guidelines is to establish a fair standard of support for children so as to ensure that they benefit from the financial means of both parents after separation.  In attempting to carry out this purpose, courts must recognize that parents have a joint and ongoing obligation to support their children after the breakdown of their relationship.  In order to meet this obligation, parents must as a general rule earn what they are capable of earning. Imputing income is a means by which the court can give effect to the support obligations of each parent after separation.

b. The first question which the court must address in deciding whether to impute income pursuant to section 19(1)(a) is whether the spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed.  In determining this issue, the court should consider the payor party’s capacity to earn income in light of their age, education, health, work history and the availability of work that is within the scope of the party’s capabilities.

c. A finding of deliberate under-employment or unemployment does not require evidence of bad faith on the part of the payor spouse or an attempt on their part to thwart support obligations.  A parent is intentionally under-employed within the meaning of this section if they earn less than they are capable of earning having regard for all of the circumstances. The parent is intentionally unemployed when they choose not to work when capable of earning an income.

d. In deciding whether a party is deliberately under-employed or unemployed, the court should consider the following principles:

i. There is a duty on a payor parent to actively seek out reasonable income earning opportunities that will maximize their income potential so as to meet the needs of their children.

ii. A self-induced reduction of income with no realistic prospect of future financial advancement is not a basis upon which to avoid or reduce child support payments.  Accordingly, the court may find the party to be deliberately under-employed and impute income where the party has persisted in un-remunerative employment or self-employment, or where they have pursued unrealistic or unproductive career aspirations.

iii. A party may also be imputed income on the basis of deliberate under-employment or unemployment if they quit their employment for selfish or bad faith reasons or if they engage in reckless behaviour which affects their income earning capacity.

e. Even if it is determined that the payor parent is deliberately under-employed or unemployed, the court has the discretion to decide whether or not income should be imputed to them.  This decision will turn on the court’s overall assessment of the reasonableness of the payor’s decisions and actions in relation to their income.

f. The onus is on the recipient spouse to establish that the payor parent is intentionally under-employed or unemployed.  If this hurdle is crossed, the court must turn to the question of whether the under-employment or unemployment falls within the exceptions set out in section 19(1)(a).  The onus at that point shifts to the payor spouse to satisfy the court that their situation falls within one of the exceptions.

g. If the payor alleges that their under-employment or unemployment should not result in an imputation of income because it is required due to their reasonable educational needs, the court must embark upon a two- step inquiry, as follows:

i. First, the court must determine whether the educational needs which the payor relies upon are reasonable.  This analysis involves a consideration of the course of study and whether the studies will realistically lead to meaningful financial benefits in the long term.  This inquiry must be undertaken keeping in mind that a spouse cannot be excused from their child support obligations “in furtherance of unrealistic or unproductive career aspirations.”

ii. If the court is satisfied that the course of study is reasonable, it must then determine what is required by virtue of those educational needs.  In other words, the payor must satisfy the court that the payor’s level of under-employment or unemployment is required by virtue of their reasonable educational needs.   If the payor does not satisfy the court on this point, the court may impute income at a level that it considers appropriate having regard for the educational program and the demands and expectations of the program.  Questions which the payor must address include:  How many courses must be taken and when?  How much time must be spent in and outside of the classroom to ensure continuation in the program?  Are the academic demands of the program such that the payor should be excused from pursuing part-time work?  Could the program be completed over a longer period of time with the payor taking fewer courses at a time so that they could work on either a full-time or part-time basis?  Is summer employment possible?  Can the payor take co-operative courses as part of the program in order to earn income?

h. Finally, in determining the amount of income to impute on the basis of deliberate under-employment or unemployment, the court must consider what is reasonable in the circumstances of the particular case.  The factors that the court is required to consider include the age, education, experience, skills and health of the payor, their past earning history and the amount of income that the payor could reasonably earn if they worked to capacity. [Citations removed.]”

Thomson v. Delmoro, 2019 ONSC 1267 (CanLII) at 39

“Status quo is always a relevant consideration, perhaps less so with the passage of time.  Parents are presumed to have equal status and neither has the right to make unilateral changes, absent special circumstances, agreement or court order.  See:  Rifai v. Green, 2014 ONSC 1377.  A.C.V.P. did act unilaterally at the time of separation and commencement of litigation.  The circumstances had not changed prior to these events.  But he was successful in obtaining the initial court order for custody in November 2014.

Status quo is neither a rigid concept nor a short term living arrangement.  Rather, it is the regime in place during the relationship and prior to separation.  It assists the court by examining how parenting has worked in the past and the benefit or detriment to the children.  The status quo, however, is but one factor to consider in the circumstances of the case and within the framework of the best interests of the children test.  See:  Moggey v. Moggey, (1990) 1990 CanLII 7339 (SK QB), 28 R.F.L. (3d) 416 (Sask.Q.B.); Sodhi v. Sodhi, 2002 CanLII 41503 (Ont.C.A.); Izyuk v. Bilousov, 2011 ONSC 6451; Gerbert v. Wilson, 2015 SKCA 139; and K.R. v. J.K., 2018 SKCA 35.

Following separation, parents must be allowed a reasonable period of time to establish a new parenting regime.  I remain of the view, a status quo cannot be manufactured by a delay in the court process:  See:  White v. Richardson (2005), 2005 CanLII 14148 (ON SC), 18 R.F.L. (6^th) 229 (Ont.S.C.J.).  However, it must be recognized that the passage of time can result in the establishment of a new status quo.  See:  Gebert v. Wilson, supra.

…

The passage of time, despite being unnecessary and unreasonable, must be considered from the children’s perspective.  Both parties are responsible for the delay.  In this regard, I am not persuaded the status quo during the relationship is determinative.  Nor do I conclude a new status quo was created.  Nevertheless, the four plus years in the care of A.C.V.P. is a factor under section 24(2)(c).”

A.C.V.P. v. A.M.T, 2019 ONSC 1559 (CanLII) at 258-260 & 263

“The decision as to whether an order for sole custody or joint custody is in a child’s best interests is ultimately a matter of judicial discretion.  However, a number of general principles have emerged from Kaplanis, Lawson and the subsequent case-law to assist in the decision-making process.  These can be summarized as follows:

1. 1. 1.   There is no default position in favour of joint custody.  Each case is fact-based and discretion-driven (Kaplanis;  Ladisa v. Ladisa, 2005 CanLII 1627 (ON CA), 2005 CarswellOnt 268 (Ont. C.A);  Rubinov-Liberman v. Liberman, 2014 ONSC 5700(S.C.J.);  Palumbo v. Palumbo, 2017 CarswellOnt 236 (S.C.J.)).
      2.   Joint custody should only be considered as an option if both parents are fit parents and able to meet the general needs of the children.  This is a threshold issue before the court considers the question of whether the parties are able to effectively communicate on issues relating to the children (Kaplanis;  T.E.H., at para. 446).
      3.  The quality of past parenting and decision-making, both during the parties’ relationship and post-separation, is a critical factor in determining whether joint custody is appropriate (Milford. v. Catherwood, 2014 CarswellOnt 7879 (O.C.J.)).
      4.   However, the mere fact that both parents acknowledge that the other is a “fit” parent does not mean that it is in the best interests of the child for a joint custody order to issue.  The decision regarding the appropriate decision-making arrangement must take into consideration all factors relevant to the child’s best interests (Kaplanis, at para. 10).
      5.   Although some measure of communication and cooperation between the parties is necessary to support a joint custody order, the court is not required to apply a standard of perfection in assessing the parents’ ability to work together.  As Quinn, J. remarked in Brook v. Brook,2006 CanLII 12294 (ON SC), [2006] O.J. No. 1514 (Ont. S.C.J.), “the cooperation needed is workable, not blissful; adequate, not perfect.”
      6.   The fact that one party insists that the parties are unable to communicate with each other is not in and of itself sufficient to rule out the possibility of a joint custody order.   The court must carefully consider the parties’ past and current parenting relationship and reach its own conclusions respecting the parties’ ability to communicate, rather than simply relying on allegations of conflict by one or both of the parties (Kaplanis, at para. 11;  Ladisa). The existence of conflict and strife between the parties from time to time, and at the time of trial, will not necessarily preclude the court from making an order for joint custody.  The question to be determined is whether the nature, extent and frequency of the conflict between the parties is such that it is impacting or likely to impact on the well-being of the children.   If the evidence indicates that the parties, despite their conflict with each other, have been able to shelter the child from the conflict reasonably well and put the child’s interests ahead of their own when necessary, an order for joint custody may be appropriate (Ladisa).  The question for the court to determine is “whether a reasonable measure of communication and cooperation is in place, and is achievable in the future, so that the best interests of the child can be ensured on an ongoing basis” (Warcop v. Warcop, 2009 CanLII 6423 (ON SC), 2009 CarswellOnt 782 (S.C.J.);  Lambert v. Peachman, 2016 ONSC 7443(S.C.J.)).
      7.   Where an objective review of the historical and more recent evidence clearly indicates that there has never been an ability to cooperate or communicate effectively, or that one or both of the parties is/are unable to put the needs of the child before their own, joint custody is not an appropriate order (Hildinger v. Carroll, 2004 CarswellOnt 444 (C.A.);Kaplanis; Ladisa).  In these circumstances, hoping that communication between the parties will improve once the litigation is over does not provide a sufficient basis for making an order of joint custody (Kaplanis).  There must be a clear evidentiary basis for believing that joint custody would be feasible (Iannizzi v Iannizzi, 2010 ONCA 519 (C.A.), at para. 2).
      8.  In cases involving very young children, the court must take into consideration the fact that the child is unable to easily communicate their physical, emotional, developmental and other needs. Accordingly, the need for effective communication between the parties in a joint custodial arrangement will be particularly pressing in such circumstances (Kaplanis, at para. 11).
      9.   The wishes of the child will also be relevant to the decision respecting the appropriate custodial disposition in cases involving older children.  Although a child’s wishes in such circumstances do not necessarily synchronize perfectly with the child’s best interests, “the older the child, the more an order as to custody requires the co-operation of the child and consideration of the child’s wishes” (Kaplanis, at para. 13).
      10. Evidence as to how an interim custody and access order has worked, and in particular, whether the parties have been able to set aside their personal differences and work together in the best interests of the child, will be highly relevant to the ultimate decision regarding the appropriate custodial regime.
      11. In analyzing the ability of the parties to communicate, the court must delve below the surface and consider the source of the conflict.   The Ontario Court of Appeal has clearly stated that one parent cannot create conflict and problems with the other parent by engaging in unreasonable conduct, impeding access, marginalizing the other parent, or by any other means and then justify a claim for sole custody in their favour on the basis of lack of cooperation and communication (Lawson;  Ursic v. Ursic, 2004 CarswellOnt 8728 (Ont. S.C.J.),  aff’d 2006 CanLII 18349 (ON CA), 2006 CarswellOnt 3335 (C.A.);  Andrade v. Kennelly, 2006 CarswellOnt 3762 (Ont. S.C.J.), aff’d 2007 ONCA 898 (CanLII), 2007 CarswellOnt 8271 (C.A.)).  Where the parties are both competent and loving parents, but one of them is the major source of the conflict, this factor may support an order for sole custody in favour of the other party (Alqudsi v. Dahmus, 2016 ONCJ 707(O.C.J.)).
      12. There has been an increasing willingness in recent years to order joint custody rather than sole custody where such an order is considered necessary to preserve the balance of power between the parties, particularly in cases where both parties are caring and competent parents but one party has been primarily responsible for the conflict between the parties (Habel v. Hagedorn, 2005 ONCJ 242 (CanLII), 2005 CarswellOnt 3863 (O.C.J.);  Garrow v. Woycheshen,2008 ONCJ 686 (CanLII), 2008 CarswellOnt  8193 (O.C.J.);  Bromley v. Bromley, 2009 ONCA 355 (CanLII), 2009 CarswellOnt 2210 (Ont. C.A.);  R.K.K. v. B.M.M. and R.S., 2009 CarswellYukon 38 (Yuk. S.C.);  Hsiung v. Tsioutsioulas, 2011 CarswellOnt 10606 (O.C.J.);  Sinclair v. Sinclair, 2013 ONSC 1226 (S.C.J.); Caverley v. Stanley, 2015 ONSC 647 (S.C.J.);  Ferreira v.Ferreira, 2015 ONSC 2845 (S.C.J.);  T.E.H. ).

While the foregoing comments outline the various factors and considerations which the courts have taken into consideration in deciding between sole vs. joint custody, the analysis must at all times remain firmly grounded in the best interests of the child before the court.  Even if both parents are attentive and loving, a joint custody order may not coincide with the child’s best interests.  As Pazaratz, J. stated in Izyuk v. Bilousov, 2011 ONSC 6451 (CanLII), 2011 CarswellOnt 12097 (S.C.J.) at para. 504, “[I]n the wrong family circumstances, a joint custody order can perpetuate hostilities, indecision, and power struggles. Children – particularly children already exposed to the upset of family breakdown – look to their parents for love, guidance, stability, protection, and consistency. They need to have confidence that adult decisions will be made quickly, properly and uneventfully.”

Jackson v. Jackson, 2017 ONSC 1566 (CanLII) at 65-66

“It is fundamental that a child’s best interest is to maximize the amount of parenting time with both parents.  As a corollary, any attempt by a party to minimize or marginalize the other party’s parental time or role, is a very serious shortcoming in a party’s parenting ability.”

Pontigon v. Pontigon, 2018 ONSC 1445 (CanLII) at 52

“We adopt, for the purposes of this appeal, the following statement made by Doherty J.A. in Beard Winter LLP v. Shekhdar, 2016 ONCA 493 (CanLII), [2016] O.J. No. 3257, at para. 10:

It is important that justice be administered impartially.  A judge must give careful consideration to any claim that he should disqualify himself on account of bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias.  In my view, a judge is best advised to remove himself if there is any air of reality to a bias claim. That said, judges do the administration of justice a disservice by simply yielding to entirely unreasonable and unsubstantiated recusal demands.  Litigants are not entitled to pick their judge.  They are not entitled to effectively eliminate judges randomly assigned to their case by raising specious partiality claims against those judges.  To step aside in the face of a specious bias claim is to give credence to a most objectionable tactic.”

Miracle v. Maracle III, 2017 ONCA 195 (CanLII) at 7

“I adopt the thoughtful summary made by Madsen J. in Weber v. Merritt, 2018 ONSC 3086 (CanLII) of the applicable principles and the contextual considerations relevant to ordering non-party disclosure and questioning:

1. 1. 29. The onus on a motion for non-party disclosure and/or questioning is on the moving party. Ontario (Attorney General) v. Ballard Estate, 1995 CarswellOnt 1332 (Ont. C.A.)at 16.

1. 1. 30. The starting point is to consider the context, and the purpose for which the Rule is invoked. Ireland v. Ireland, 2011 ONCA 623 (CanLII) ([In Chambers]) at 28.

1. 1. 31. The Court has held that the test under rule 19(11) is an objective test which requires an analysis outside the litigant’s belief system: “suspicion and conjecture will not suffice.” See Santilli v. Piselli, 2010 Carswell Ont 3317 (Ont. S.C.J.)at paragraph 12. There is no reason that the test would not be the same under rule 20(5).

1. 1. 32. In Ontario (Attorney General) v. Ballard Estate, supra at 15, in the context of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Ontario Court of Appeal set out six factors to be considered by the Motions judge when faced with a motion for non-party disclosure:

a. The importance of the documents in the litigation;

b. Whether production at the discovery stage of the process as opposed to production at Trial is necessary to avoid unfairness to the Applicant;

c. Whether the discovery of the defendants with respect to the issues to which the documents are relevant is adequate and if not, whether the responsibility for that inadequacy rests with the defendants;

d. The position of the non-parties with respect to production;

e. The availability of the documents or their informational equivalent from some other source which is available to the moving party;

f. The relationship of the non-parties from whom production is sought, to the litigation and the parties to the litigation. Non-parties who have an interest in the subject matter of the litigation and whose interests are allied with the party opposing production should be more susceptible to a production order than a true “stranger” to the litigation.

1. 1. 33. Rule 20(5) has been held to be more permissive than the comparable Rule in the Rules of Civil Procedure, and to give judges more liberal and generous discretion. As noted by Justice Turnbull in Hagey-Holmes v. Hagey, 2005 CarswellOnt 2840 (Ont. S.C.J.)at 32:

That makes eminent sense when one considers that in matrimonial litigation, spouses and family members may be “used” to shield income or other assets that might be relevant in the assessment of spousal support, child support, or net family equalization issues.

1. 1. 34. So too in Loeb v. Loeb, 2013 CarswellOnt 3247 (Ont. S.C.J.)at 42, the Court noted that it is not uncommon in the family law context for family members and their businesses to align themselves to support and protect a family member defending a property or support claim.

1. 1. 35. At the same time, as set out in Boyd v. Fields, 2006 CarswellOnt 8675 (Ont. S.C.J.)at 12, as with all disclosure requests in the family law context, whether from parties or non-parties, while full and frank disclosure is a fundamental tenet of the Family Law Rules, “there is also an element of proportionality, common sense, and fairness built into these rules.” Disclosure obligations must be assessed in light of Rule 2(3).

1. 1. 36. As stressed by Justice Kristjanson in Politis v. Politis, 2018 ONSC 323 (Ont. S.C.J.) (CanLII), in the family law context, the test for compelling third party disclosure set out in Ontario (Attorney General) v. Ballard Estate, supra, “must be supplemented to take into account two critical values, privacy and proportionality.” She notes, in the context of new partners, that privacy interests of third parties must be carefully balanced against the interests of the parties in the proceeding.

1. 1. 37. Non-parties are generally protected from potentially intrusive, costly, and time-consuming processes of discovery except in circumstances specifically addressedby the Rules. See Santilli v. Piselli, supra. As Justice McGee noted therein at paragraph 13: “The discovery process must be kept within reasonable bounds.”

1. 1. 38. There must be an evidentiary basis to show that the documents sought or the questioning requested is relevant. The request for disclosure from a non-party and the request for questioning should not amount to a fishing expedition. Campbell v. Wentzell, 2015 CarswellOnt 15086 (Ont. S.C.J.)at 47. Disclosure is not a weapon and is not intended to overreach. Saunders v. Saunders, 2015 CarswellOnt 2209 (Ont. S.C.J.)at para. 13.

To this summary I would add the contextual filter noted by Kane J. in Loeb v. Loeb (cited above, at para.48) that “[w]hat is fair, relevant and needs to be produced increases with the complexity of the circumstances of the parties.”

Cavarra-Aitoro v. Aitoro, 2019 ONSC 1460 (CanLII) at 11-12

“Notwithstanding the appellant’s claim that, on the basis of the proceedings and material before her, Van Melle J. could not and in fact did not make a finding of contempt, his position that the order under appeal is a final order rests on the assumption that it is, in substance if not in form, a contempt order.  He argues that Rule 31, which allows the court to impose a finding of contempt against a party in breach of an order, is the only provision of the Family Law Rules that allows for the imposition of a fine or monetary penalty.  Because a fine was imposed by Van Melle J., the order must therefore be a contempt order.

A finding that a party is in contempt of court “is a serious matter that is quasi-criminal in nature”: Bell Express Vu Limited Partnership v. Corkery, 2009 ONCA 85 (CanLII), at para. 20.  The significance of this is such that a contempt order is considered to be a final order, an appeal from which lies directly to this court: Bush v. Mereshensky (2007), 2007 ONCA 679 (CanLII), 43 R.F.L. (6th) 267 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 10.

However, the respondent argues that Van Melle J.’s order cannot be considered a contempt order.  A finding of contempt was not sought in any of the motions before Van Melle J. or Corbett J.  In any event, neither Van Melle J. nor Corbett J. addressed the issue of contempt or made findings in that regard.

The respondent submits that the authority for imposing a fine exists quite apart from the contempt provisions of the Family Law Rules. Specifically, she refers to three provisions of the Family Law Rules which she claims support her position that the court was entitled to make any order it considered appropriate in view of the appellant’s failure to obey Corbett J.’s disclosure order:

• • • Rule 1(8) provides that the court may, where an order has not been complied with, make “any order that it considers necessary for a just determination of the matter, on any conditions that the court considers appropriate, including …”
    •  Rule 14(23) provides that on a motion for failure to obey an order that was made on motion, the court may “in addition to any other remedy allowed under these rules,

…

(c) make any other order that is appropriate, including an order for costs.”

• • •  Rule 19(10) provides that the court may, on motion, make various orders where a party has failed to comply with an order to disclose documents.  Such orders include a contempt order, but also include “any other order that is appropriate.”

The respondent argues that any of these rules gave Corbett J. the necessary authority to order the appellant to pay a fine in the event that he failed to comply with the disclosure order and produce the required documents.  Van Melle J.’s order for payment of the fine did no more than apply the terms of Corbett J.’s order.  The respondent submits that no finding of contempt was sought or made and the order for the payment of the fine did not finally dispose of any issue in the proceedings.  I agree.”

Mantella v. Mantella, 2009 ONCA 194 (CanLII) at 16-21.