|
Family - Appeals. Wade v. Avery
In Wade v. Avery (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a family law appeal, here from an order "to pay past and ongoing child support as well as s. 7 expenses and granting the respondent a vesting order conferring to her sole title to the matrimonial home".
Here the court applies doctrine which bars appeal from uncontested trials:[3] This court will typically not entertain appeals from uncontested trials absent exceptional circumstances, notably where the issues raised in the appeal have clear merit or an injustice has been done: Lamothe v. Ellis, 2022 ONCA 789, 79 R.F.L. (8th) 8, at para. 3; Matos v. Driesman, 2024 ONCA 271, at paras. 17-18. The court may also decline to hear appeals from parties who have ignored court orders, particularly orders to pay child support: Cosentino v. Cosentino, 2017 ONCA 593, 98 R.F.L. (7th) 53, at para. 8.
[4] Although we permitted the appellant to present his submissions, we find that no exceptional circumstances exist. We are not persuaded that the appeal has clear merit or that the trial judge’s order is unjust. . Unoh v. Agboola
In Unoh v. Agboola (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considers a 'motion to change', which seems to be essentially a motion to vary an earlier order:[41] Relying on Hawkins v. Schlosser, 2013 ONSC 2120, at paragraph 17 and Lapier v. Roebuck, 2017 ONSC 1640, at paragraph 49, the mother submits that the father’s motion to change cannot proceed where there is an outstanding appeal. . Arias v. Barbieri
In Arias v. Barbieri (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court states the general standard of review in family law matters:[14] The Court of Appeal has stated that “[i]t is well-established that the standard of review in family law litigation promotes finality and recognizes the importance of the appreciation of the facts by the trial judge. An appeal court may intervene only where there is a material error, a serious misapprehension of the evidence, or an error in law”: Ludmer v. Ludmer, 2014 ONCA 827, at para. 14.
....
[31] As noted above, these matters are procedural decisions that were well within the discretion of the motion judge. “[A]ny pretrial directions given regarding the conduct of a trial ultimately are subject to the discretion of the judge presiding at the trial”: Abrams v. Abrams, 2010 ONSC 2703, at para. 82. .... . Alajajian v. Alajajian
In Alajajian v. Alajajian (Ont CA, 2021) the Court of Appeal states the clear attitude of the appellate courts to family law fact disputes:[4] The trial judge’s factual findings and credibility assessments are entitled to substantial deference. This is especially so in family law cases. This court can interfere "only where the fact-related aspects of the judge's decision in a family law case exceeds a generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible and is plainly wrong": Johanson v. Hinde, 2016 ONCA 430, at para. 1. This standard of review is firmly established: see Rados v Rados, 2019 ONCA 627, at para. 23, Jonas v. Pacitto, 2020 ONCA 727, at para. 42 and Levin v. Levin, 2020 ONCA 604, at para. 12. . J.S.-R. v. Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa
In J.S.-R. v. Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (Div Ct, 2020) the Divisional Court stated the deferential approach that appeal courts have to family matters:[14] In Hickey v. Hickey, 1999 CanLII 691 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518 and Van de Perre v. Edwards, 2001 SCC 60, the Supreme Court held that because of the fact-based and discretionary nature of family matters, trial judges must be given considerable deference by appellate courts when such decisions are reviewed. An appeal court must only intervene when there is a material error, a serious misapprehension of the evidence, or an error in law, and it is not entitled to overturn an order simply because it would have made a different decision or balanced the factors differently. . Vanleer v. Young
In Vanleer v. Young (Ont CA, 2020) the Court of Appeal pleads with the Ontario legislature to address problems the courts are having with family law appeals:[54] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. I would make no order as to costs of the appeal or the attendance before the Divisional Court. I would, however, add my voice to so many others of this court in imploring the legislature to clarify family law appeal routes: see Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 867, Marchildon v. Beitz, 2012 ONCA 668, 23 R.F.L. (7th) 316; Priest v. Reilly, 2018 ONCA 389, Christodoulou v. Christodoulou, 2010 ONCA 93, 75 R.F.L. (6th) 93.
|
