Siegel's Family Court Calendar

“For good reason, judges are reluctant, if not loath, to make an order as to costs when the parties settle the merits of their dispute:  Blank v. Micallef, 2009 CanLII 60668 (ON SC), 2009 CanLII 60668 (Ont. S.C.J.) at para. 11.  Any attempt to determine a “winner” or “loser” in a settlement is, in most cases, complex if not impossible.

In Davis v. Davis, 2004 CanLII 19156 (ON SC), 2004 CanLII 19156 (Ont. S.C.J.) Perkins J. observed that a party is only successful within the meaning of rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, if “declared” such by “a judge, after argument.” (para. 3)

Perkins J. was not stating an inviolate rule. There may be instances where settlement is a clear capitulation by one party in favour of another.”

Page v. Desabrais, 2012 ONSC 6875 (CanLII) at 28-30

“The principles of contract interpretation are not in issue on this appeal.  In interpreting a contract, effect must first be given to the intention of the parties. The principles are explained in Consolidated-Bathurst Export Ltd. v. Mutual Boiler and Machinery Insurance Co., 1979 CanLII 10 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 888:

[T]he normal rules of construction lead a court to search for an interpretation which, from the whole of the contract, would appear to promote or advance the true intent of the parties at the time of entry into the contract. Consequently, literal meaning should not be applied where to do so would bring about an unrealistic result or a result which would not be contemplated in the commercial atmosphere in which the insurance was contracted. Where words may bear two constructions, the more reasonable one, that which produces a fair result, must certainly be taken as the interpretation which would promote the intention of the parties. Similarly, an interpretation which defeats the intention of the parties and their objective in entering into the commercial transaction in the first place should be discarded in favour of an interpretation of a policy which promotes a sensible commercial result. (p. 901)

In B.G. Checo International Ltd. v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, 1993 CanLII 145 (SCC), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 12 the Supreme Court provides further guidance:

It is a cardinal rule of the construction of contracts that the various parts of the contract are to be interpreted in the context of the intentions of the parties as evident from the contract as a whole (pp.23-24)

Applying that principle to domestic contracts, a court must search for an interpretation that is in accordance with the parties’ intention at the time they entered into the contract. Where two interpretations are possible, the court should reject the one that would produce a result that the parties would not have reasonably expected at the time they entered into the contract. Instead, the court should favour an interpretation that promotes the reasonable expectations of the parties and that provides a sensible result in the family law context. To arrive at such an interpretation, the court must interpret the provision in the context of the entire contract, including the entirety of the section at issue, to discern the likely intention of the parties.”

MacDougall v. MacDougall, 2005 CanLII 44676 (ON CA) at 20-22

“The principles of statutory interpretation are well known. The words of the statute are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of the enacting legislative body: Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), 1998 CanLII 837 (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, at para. 21; Agraira v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36 (CanLII), [2013] 2 S.C.R. 559, at para. 64.”

         Cadieux v. Cloutier, 2018 ONCA 903 (CanLII) at 109

“To receive an order for spousal support a spouse must first establish that he or she is entitled to spousal support. Entitlement is a threshold issue which can be established in three ways. First is the compensatory claim. In this claim the potential recipient must demonstrate that he or she has suffered economic loss as a result of roles adopted during the marriage or because the recipient conferred some economic benefit on the payor without compensation. Second is the non-compensatory claim. In this claim the recipient must establish that he or she has suffered economic hardship as a result of the marriage break down. The third way is on the basis of a contract between the parties: Bracklow v. Bracklow, 1999 CanLII 715 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420 at paragraphs 41, 43, 44 and 49.

“[T]he mere passage of time itself does not constitute a material change in circumstances in respect of a spousal obligation”: Hess v. Hamilton, 2018 ONSC 661 (CanLII) at para. 100. In circumstances where the original basis for entitlement was compensation, repartnering is unlikely to constitute a material change in circumstances: Walsh v. Davidson, 2016 ONSC 7318 (CanLII) at para. 19. This is because compensatory support is intended to compensate for economic loss or disadvantage caused by roles adopted during the relationship. This is a retrospective analysis: see Wegler v. Wegler, 2012 ONSC 5982 (CanLII). The focus of the analysis is on where the recipient would have been if they had entered or remained in the labour force.

Where entitlement is established on the basis of economic hardship, a repartnering is likely to constitute a material change in circumstances: Strifler v. Strifler, 2014 ONCJ 69 (CanLII) at para. 82. This is because a needs-based entitlement is intended to address needs that have arisen as a result of the breakdown of the relationship: see Wegler at para. 92.”

Cassidy v. Cassidy, 2018 ONSC 7222 (CanLII) at 24-26

“Sections 1(1) of the Statute of Frauds states:

Every estate or interest of freehold and every uncertain interest … in … lands … shall be made or created by a writing signed by the parties making or creating the same, or their agents thereunto lawfully authorized in writing, and, if not so made or created, has the force and effect of an estate at will only, and shall not be deemed or taken to have any other or greater force or effect. [Emphasis added.]

In the face of this provision, the motion judge was correct to hold that a verbal representation that Shakiba would re-convey her interest in the property if she left the marriage could create nothing more than an estate at will and could therefore be terminated at the discretion of Shakiba’s father (or, presumably, of Shakiba).

Moreover, one of the purposes of the writing requirement in s. 1(1) of the Statute of Frauds is to avoid the very kind of difficulty that has arisen here. As the Alberta Court of Appeal observed in Austie v. Aksnowicz, 1999 ABCA 56 (CanLII), [1999] 10 W.W.R. 713, at para. 52, leave to appeal refused, [1999] S.C.C.A. No. 172, the “whole point of the Statute of Frauds is to provide written corroboration of a disputed oral deal.”

Accepting for the purposes of this discussion that the marriage contract is admitted as fresh evidence, the dowry provision in it states:

Dowry: One volume of Holy Quran, one rock candy, one mirror and two chandeliers, one white rose, and three parts [out of six parts] of a residential house at: 4 Leona Ave., Ottawa, Ontario. [Emphasis added.]

The dowry provision does not disclose, either expressly or by necessary implication, what the appellants seek to establish as the additional essential term of the transfer by Deed of Gift – namely, the term or condition calling for re-conveyance of the property in certain circumstances. That the property is referred to as part of the bride’s dowry and the dowry is part of the marriage contract, and that there may be general Iranian cultural norms and traditions relating to such marriages, is not enough, in my opinion.

Even if a marriage is entered into in the context of the cultural norms and traditions of a couple and their families, the details of how those cultural norms and traditions are to apply will inevitably vary from marriage to marriage, thus rendering the terms of the conveyance in question difficult to ascertain in myriad individual cases. It would be inconsistent with the purpose of the Statute of Frauds and with the valid public policy need for certainty in real property transactions to imply a term or condition into the Deed of Gift based on a general cultural norm or tradition and the mere reference to the property in question under the heading “dowry” in the marriage contract.

A wide variety of cultures, and their norms and traditions, form an integral part of the Canadian mosaic. They cannot simply be imported into a transaction involving the transfer of real property by reference to a concept such as “dowry”, which forms a part of a particular culture or tradition. If families of the bride and groom in circumstances such as these wish to incorporate such a concept into the transfer of property to the bride as part of her dowry, it is easy enough for them to say with clarity in the Deed of Gift expressly what it is that they intend with respect to the terms of the transfer. The parties did not do so in this case.

If ambiguous references were enough to incorporate cultural practices and traditions into a real property transaction, as the appellants seek to do here, there would be a danger of underlying expectations and motivations arising from the cultural context easily becoming conflated with intention. It is the parties’ intention and their actual agreement that must be ascertained. Was the transaction a gift and, if so, what were the terms and conditions, if any, attached to that gift?

Finally, even if the appellant parents had an underlying motivation for the transfer and some unarticulated “expectation” in relation to it, arising out of their Iranian culture and tradition, a valid gift, once made, cannot be revoked or retracted and the failure of a donee to fulfill a donor’s expectations does not vitiate a valid gift: see Berdette v. Berdette (1991), 1991 CanLII 7061 (ON CA), 81 D.L.R. (4th) 194 (Ont. C.A.), at pp. 200-201, leave to appeal refused, [1991] S.C.C.A. No. 306. The Court also observed in the Berdette case, at p. 199, that it is not “the task of the court … to correct a possible mistake of judgment on the appellant’s part, but to ascertain the appellant’s intention at the time of the transactions with which we are concerned.” That is what the motion judge did here and I agree with his analysis.”

Abdollahpour v. Banifatemi, 2015 ONCA 834 (CanLII) at 28-36

Rule 7(5) of the Family Law Rules states as follows:

The court may order that any person who should be a party shall be added as a party, and may give directions for service on that person.

I agree with the applicant that, at this time, [the child’s great-aunt] Ms. Dennis is not a parent to the child and has never had care and control of the child; and consequently, she does not have standing to be added as a party pursuant to rule 7(4) of the Family Law Rules unless this Court orders otherwise.

The central question is whether or not I should exercise my discretion to add Ms. Dennis as a party in these proceedings pursuant to Rule 7(5) Family Law Rules.

The discretion to exercise is to be used sparingly and only when necessary for the just determination of litigation as stated by Justice McSorley in Breen v MacArthur, 2016 ONSC 2454 (CanLII) at para. 5 of the decision, Justice McSorley stated:

Rule 7(5) states that the court may order that any person who should be a party shall be added as a party and may give directions for service on that person. This rule gives the court discretion with respect to whether a person is added as a party. The rule itself provides no criteria or direction as to how the court should exercise its discretion. There can be no doubt that the court has the discretion to add persons as parties to a case. However, that discretion should be used sparingly and only when necessary for the just determination of the litigation.

In a child protection case, Justice Campbell in Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. S. H., 2002 CanLII 46218 (ON SC), [2002] O. J. No. 4491 set out the following principles to be considered before adding a party in a child protection proceeding:

1. 1. 1. whether the addition of the party is in the best interests of the child,

1. 1. 2. whether the addition of the party will delay or prolong proceedings and duly,

1. 1. 3. whether the addition of the parties is necessary to determine the issues, and

1. 1. 4. whether the additional party is capable of putting forward a plan that is in the best interests of the child.

The criteria set out in the Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex has been applied in non-child protection proceedings as in Santilli v. Piselli, 2010 ONSC 2874 (CanLII), 87 R.F.L. (6th) 135 and Worrall v. Worrall 2012 ONSC 4388 (CanLII). I agree with the analysis of Justice Mitrow in the Worrall decision where he stated at para. 32 the following:

32 By way of summary, the following criteria, which are not exhaustive, can be applied to determine when a person should be added as a party pursuant to sub-rule 7(5) of the Family Law Rules:

a) is the person a “necessary” party to determine all issues in the case;

b) in determining “necessity”, it will be unlikely that necessity can be established if the proposed party has no “legal interest” in the case, meaning that no order can be made for or against, the proposed party;

c) in a circumstance or a proposed party has no legal interest in the case, the court may exercise his discretion to add the proposed party in situations (in this list is not meant to be exhaustive) where there are unusual facts, there is evidence of some collusion between the parties in the matrimonial proceeding or the case is egregious. The exercise of the discretion to had parties in the circumstances should be exercised very sparingly.”

Reeves v. Cooper, 2018 ONSC 7137 (CanLII) at 23-28

“The test for staying an order pending appeal under r. 63.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, requires the court to consider the following factors: (1) a preliminary assessment must be made of the merits of the case to ensure that there is a serious question to be tried; (2) it must be determined whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the application were refused; and (3) an assessment must be made as to which of the parties would suffer greater harm from the granting or refusal of the remedy pending a decision on the merits: Circuit World Corp. v. Lesperance (1997), 1997 CanLII 1385 (ON CA), 33 O.R. (3d) 674 (C.A. [In Chambers]), at para. 8; Warren Woods Land Corp. v. 1636891 Ontario Inc., 2012 ONCA 12 (CanLII) [In Chambers], at para. 1.

These three factors are not watertight compartments; the strength of one may compensate for the weakness of another. The overarching consideration is whether the interests of justice call for a stay: International Corona Resources Ltd. v. LAC Minerals Ltd. (1986), 21 C.P.C. (2d) 252 (Ont. C.A.); Longley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2007 ONCA 149 (CanLII), 223 O.A.C. 102 [In Chambers], at paras. 14-15.”

Zafar v. Saiyid, 2017 ONCA 919 (CanLII) at 17-18

 “In Plumley v. Plumley, 1999 CanLII 13990, 1999 CarswellOnt. 3503 (S.C.) the court discussed factors relating to interim mobility at para. 7:

It appears to me that the following factors are or ought to be important in deciding the mobility issue on an interim basis:

1. A court will be more reluctant to upset the status quo on an interim basis and permit the move when there is a genuine issue for trial.

2. There can be compelling circumstances which might dictate that a judge ought to allow the move. For example, the move may result in a financial benefit to the family unit, which will be lost if the matter awaits a trial or the best interests of the children might dictate that they commence school at a new location.

3. Although there may be a genuine issue for trial, the move may be permitted on an interim basis if there is a strong probability that the custodial parent’s position will prevail at a trial.

Dealing with interim mobility in this case can be analogized to the interim custody case of Currie v. Maudsley, 2011 ONSC 4214 (CanLII). There, on the issue of status quo, the court stated at paras. 15-17:

The law is well settled that on a motion for interim custody, the status quo of the children should not be disturbed in the absence of compelling reasons where a change in custody is necessary to meet the children’s best interests and this would include a situation where there is evidence that maintaining an existing status quo will be harmful to the children.

In Grant v. Turgeon, 2000 CanLII 22565 (ON SC), [2000] O.J. No. 970, V. Mackinnon J. stated that the “status quo will be maintained on an interim custody motion in the absence of compelling reasons indicative of the necessity of a change to meet the children’s best interests. That is so whether the existing arrangement is de facto or de jure (see para. 15).

Some of the reasons why the interim status quo should be preserved were succinctly stated by J. Wright J. in Kimpton v. Kimpton, [2002] O.J. No. 5367 as follows in paras. 1 and 2:

There is a golden rule which implacably governs motions for interim custody: stability is a primary need for children caught in the throes of matrimonial dispute and the de facto custody of children ought not to be disturbed pendente lite, unless there is some compelling reason why in the interests of the children, the parent having de facto custody should be deprived thereof. On this consideration hangs all other considerations. On motions for interim custody the most important factor in considering the best interests of the child has traditionally been the maintenance of the legal status quo. … By status quo is meant the primary or legal status quo, not a short lived status quo created to gain tactical advantage. [Emphasis in original. Citations omitted].

Unless the courts insist that they will not disturb the existing arrangements for children on interim motions except in those cases where it is clear that the children are being exposed to danger or there is some other compelling reason, the courts will continue to be confronted with litigants demanding that the court embark upon the impossible task of attempting to assess the relative merits of parties who have filed numerous affidavits contradicting the affidavits of the other.”

Hutchings-Valentim v. Valentim, 2018 ONSC 7110 (CanLII) at 20-21

“To summarize, it is important to know the following about the court’s jurisdiction to make refraining orders:

a) A refraining order can only be made with respect to a First Notice. It cannot be made in response to a Final Notice.

b) The refraining order must be obtained within the 30-day period referred to in the First Notice. This time period cannot be extended by the Director or the court.

c)  If the 30-day period referred to in the First Notice expires on a day when court offices are closed, the last day that the court can make a refraining order is the last day on which court offices are open before the 30-day period expires.

d)  If the payor does not obtain a court date for a motion to change within 20 days of obtaining the refraining order, the refraining order is automatically terminated. If this happens, no further notice to the payor is required for the Director to direct the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend the payor’s driver’s licence.

e)  The refraining order also terminates on the earliest of the dates set out in subsection 35(19) of the [Family Arrears and Support Enforcement] If this happens, no further notice to the payor is required for the Director to direct the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend the payor’s driver’s licence.

f)  If the refraining order has not been automatically terminated due to the payor’s failure to obtain a date for a motion to change within 20 days, it may be extended, on motion to the court that made the order, for one further three to six month period, depending on the facts. The motion to extend the order must be heard before the order expires.

g) If the payor fails to comply with the payment terms of a refraining order, a payment agreement with the Director made in response to a First Notice, or the terms of a new support order made pursuant to a motion to change, the Director may send a Final Notice to the payor within 24 months of the date of the agreement or court orders. The court cannot make a further refraining order if this happens. The payor must either pay the arrears, bring the court order or agreement into good standing or enter into a payment agreement satisfactory to the Director.

h) If more than 24 months have elapsed from the making of any such agreement or court order, the Director is required to send the payor a First Notice – not a Final Notice. In this event, the payor does have the right to move for a refraining order.”

Farah v. Ontario (Director, Family Responsibility Office), 2018 ONCJ 829 (CanLII) at 36

“In this case, the father relies on his assertion that his RRSPs were equalized as part of the settlement effected by the consent order, as well as the fact that the RRSP withdrawal was a non-recurring event and was used to assist in the purchase of a home to argue that it should not be treated as income for child support purposes.

I would not accept these submissions. Subject to ss. 17-20 of the Guidelines, s. 16 provides that a spouse’s annual income for child support purposes is determined using the sources of income set out under the heading “Total income” on the T1 tax form. RRSP income is included as part of Total income on the T1 tax form. Accordingly, subject to ss. 17-20 of the Guidelines, RRSP income received in a particular year is presumptively part of a spouse’s income for child support purposes.

Section 17 of the Guidelines permits a court to depart from the income determination made under s. 16 where it is satisfied that would not be the fairest determination of income. In such a case, the court may have regard to the spouse’s income over the last three years and determine an amount that is fair and reasonable “in light of any pattern of income, fluctuation in income or receipt of a non-recurring amount during those years.”

To begin with, I am not persuaded that the father has demonstrated that treating his RRSP withdrawal as income “would not lead to the fairest determination of … income”.

In Stevens v. Boulerice, 1999 CanLII 14995 (ON SC), [1999] O.J. No. 1568, 49 R.F.L. (4th) 425 (S.C.), Aitken J. declined for two reasons to exclude RRSP withdrawals from income simply because the RRSP had been the subject of an equalization calculation.

First, she noted that s. 16 of the Guidelines requires that RRSP withdrawals be included as income for child support purposes. Further, Schedule III to the Guidelines, which provides some special rules for adjustments to income for child support purposes in certain cases, does not make any special provision for RRSP income.

Second, Aitken J. observed that the equalization was a matter between the parents while the issue before her was a question of child support. She could see no reason why an available source of income to fund child support should be excluded because of dealings between the parents. The child support was not being paid to increase the mother’s lifestyle.

I find this reasoning persuasive. The clear wording of the Guidelines includes RRSP withdrawals as income and no special exception for RRSP withdrawals has been provided in Schedule III. Although I would acknowledge the possibility that the facts of a particular equalization could in theory reach the threshold of unfairness, I have no evidence about the specifics of the equalization calculation that occurred in this case and cannot so conclude.

Similarly, I do not consider the fact that the father may have used some or all of the RRSP on account of his house purchase as a factor creating unfairness in terms of characterizing the RRSP. Particularly in circumstances where he was not working, the father’s first obligation was to ensure that his children were properly supported. The fact that the father chose instead to buy a four bedroom house should not deprive his children of an available source of child support.

Finally, I am of the opinion, that some of the early cases relied on by the trial judge in P.(J.M.) v. K.(T.L.), at para. 161, which adopted the view that non-recurring withdrawals from RRSPs should essentially be automatically excluded from income for child support purposes, have been superseded by amendments to s. 17 and by subsequent case law such as Stevens v. Boulerice.”

Fraser v. Fraser, 2013 ONCA 715 (CanLII) at 96-105.