Blogs

Carter v. Carter: When “Ruinous Litigation” Meets the Limits of the Court’s Patience

Blogs /

Introduction In Carter v. Carter, 2026 ONCA 29, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a finding of civil contempt and a 90-day custodial sentence against a father who spent roughly fifteen years defying disclosure and support orders, and later a preservation order and Mareva injunction, in his own family law proceeding. Describing the case as

Carter v. Carter: When “Ruinous Litigation” Meets the Limits of the Court’s Patience Read More »

R.L. v. M.F.: ONCA Reframes Entitlement Beyond Imputation

Blogs /

R.L. v. M.F., 2025 ONCA 595, is a helpful appellate decision for Ontario family law practitioners dealing with high-income spouses, dual-career families, and spousal support where both parties earn substantial incomes. The Court of Appeal dismissed the husband’s appeal from a trial judgment that ordered significant ongoing spousal support and prejudgment interest on equalization. The

R.L. v. M.F.: ONCA Reframes Entitlement Beyond Imputation Read More »

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.E.: Not Every Breach Demands a New Trial – The Court of Appeal Redraws the Lines

Blogs /

In Catholic CAS of Toronto v. R.E., 2025 ONCA 623, the Court of Appeal confronted a familiar but often misunderstood tension in child protection litigation: what happens when a procedural fairness breach affects only one piece of a complex trial outcome? Does it unravel the entire order? Or may the appellate court cure the error

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.E.: Not Every Breach Demands a New Trial – The Court of Appeal Redraws the Lines Read More »

Garlow v. Lasri: The Line Between Emergency and Urgent Family Motions

Blogs /

“This shouldn’t be so complicated.” — Justice Alex Pazaratz, Garlow v. Lasri In Garlow v. Lasri (2025 ONSC 6216), Justice Pazaratz delivers a timely reminder that the difference between an emergency and an urgent motion isn’t semantic — it’s procedural fairness in action. The decision clarifies how counsel should approach pre-conference motions under Rule 14(4.2)

Garlow v. Lasri: The Line Between Emergency and Urgent Family Motions Read More »

A.A.H. (Re): Permits Adoption by Deemed Parents Under the CYFSA

Blogs /

As Ontario family lawyers, we are no strangers to the evolving landscape of parentage and adoption law, particularly in the wake of the 2016 amendments to the Children’s Law Reform Act (CLRA), which took effect January 1, 2017 (O. Reg. 155/17), that broadened recognition of non-biological parents in assisted reproduction cases. Yet, the recent Divisional

A.A.H. (Re): Permits Adoption by Deemed Parents Under the CYFSA Read More »

Qu v. Zhang: Resulting Trusts, s. 14 FLA Timing, and the Weight of Credibility

Blogs /

Introduction In Qu v. Zhang, 2025 ONCA 391, the Court of Appeal upheld the Application judge’s determinations that the wife was the sole beneficial owner of the home under a resulting trust and that occupation rent was properly assessed with credits, dismissing both the appeal and the cross-appeal. The ONCA accepted the trial judge’s conclusion

Qu v. Zhang: Resulting Trusts, s. 14 FLA Timing, and the Weight of Credibility Read More »

CLARKE v. DENYES : Costs Awards in Protracted High-Conflict Family Proceedings

Blogs /

When family litigation becomes entrenched, costs can eclipse the issues themselves. In Clarke v. Denyes, 2025 ONSC 2936 (the “Costs Decision”), Justice Mathen’s May 16, 2025, endorsement following her March 17 2025 trial judgment in Clarke v. Denyes, 2025 ONSC 1894 (the “Trial Decision”) delivers a clear message: reasonableness governs, bad faith remains exceptional, and

CLARKE v. DENYES : Costs Awards in Protracted High-Conflict Family Proceedings Read More »

PRUITT v. PRUITT: Habitual Residence, Coercive Control, and the Limits of Article 13(b)

Blogs /

In Pruitt v. Pruitt, 2025 ONSC 3405, McVey J. applied the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction to determine whether a toddler allegedly wrongfully removed from Michigan should be returned there. The judgment offers a clear reaffirmation that habitual residence turns on the totality of a child’s circumstances—not unilateral parental intent—and

PRUITT v. PRUITT: Habitual Residence, Coercive Control, and the Limits of Article 13(b) Read More »

NOUH v. ELABBASY: When Flight, Fear, and Family Violence Collide

Blogs /

Justice Kamal opened his reasons with striking language: “The purpose of this motion is to promote the stability of the children and ensure that they are not used as pawns in their parents’ separation.” (para. 1) That sentence sets the overall tone of the case, indicating a judicial position regarding parenting approaches and litigation tactics

NOUH v. ELABBASY: When Flight, Fear, and Family Violence Collide Read More »

Scroll to Top