Latest news with #CourtofAppealforOntario
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Yahoo
Family law courts address impact of intimate partner violence in divorce cases
Throughout Canada, judges are being asked to address the impact of intimate partner violence in a separation and divorce. One such pivotal case is the Supreme Court of Canada's ongoing review of Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia. In this landmark appeal, the court was asked to determine whether a new tort of family violence should be recognized. If established, this tort would allow a former spouse to seek monetary damages for the enduring physical, financial, and psychological consequences of abuse within the family unit. While the Supreme Court's decision in Ahluwalia is still pending, lower courts continue to confront divorce cases involving intimate partner violence. Emerging from those decisions is a clear judicial intention to ensure the impact of family violence is fully addressed in a separation. As in Ahluwalia, courts are crafting important and meaningful remedies. That was the case in a recent decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario involving a couple who began living together in 2001 and married in 2003. Throughout the relationship, the husband was the primary income earner. After being employed in minimum wage jobs, the wife left the workforce altogether in 2011. The couple had a child in 2018 and separated shortly thereafter. During an 11-day trial before Justice Andrew Pinto of the Superior Court of Justice, the wife recounted how she was physically, verbally and mentally abused by her husband. She gave evidence that her husband threatened to kill her. According to the wife, the abuse caused PTSD and situational depression, intensified her pre-existing OCD symptoms and contributed to her inability to work. Justice Pinto accepted the wife's evidence that the husband was abusive. According to the judge, the husband beat the wife 'over the course of many years' and the wife's 'experience as a victim of family violence made it challenging for her to find employment.' Despite that finding, the judge was critical of the wife's failure to find a job after separation. Justice Pinto concluded the wife 'languished in underemployment' and that her 'complete failure to earn an income is not justified.' In the result, the judge imputed to the wife an annual income of $31,000. On that basis, the husband was not required to pay spousal support. The wife appealed, and on Mar 13 the Court of Appeal released its important decision. The court found that the trial judge's imputation of income to the wife was flawed, as it failed to fully consider the impact of the pattern of abuse on the wife's ability to work. The court emphasized that Justice Pinto had not properly accounted for the consequences of family violence when making his assessment. The decision challenges the interpretation of the federal Divorce Act. That legislation, which applies across the country to divorcing spouses, makes clear that a judge shall not take into consideration any misconduct of a spouse in relation to the marriage when making an order for spousal support. However, the Court of Appeal made an important distinction between the misconduct and its impact. Writing for the Court of Appeal, Justices Steve A. Coroza and Lorne Sossin explained that while the trial judge acknowledged the underlying facts of family violence and their impact, he erred by failing to consider the significance of these findings when imputing income to the wife. Specifically, the trial judge 'failed to grapple with the potential relevance of family violence to the wife's ability to work.' In support of their decision, Justices Coroza and Sossin pointed to Leskun v. Leskun, a 2006 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, which highlights the 'distinction between the emotional consequences of misconduct and the misconduct itself.' Given that important distinction, the Divorce Act cannot, and does not, operate in a way that prevents a judge from considering the consequences of a spouse's misconduct, including violence. That must be the case since the policy of the Divorce Act is to 'focus on the consequences of the spousal misconduct not the attribution of fault.' The 42% financial hit of divorce and how to recover from it Legal departments expect to gain huge strides with AI Judge awards damages for 'family violence' in landmark case The Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge's decision and substituted a finding that no income should be imputed to the wife. The husband was ordered to pay spousal support to the wife in the amount of $1,453 per month for an indefinite period. This decision marks a significant step in ensuring that family violence is properly addressed in divorce and separation. By acknowledging the long-lasting impact of abuse on a spouse's ability to support themselves, the Court of Appeal has reinforced the principle that the consequences of family violence must be factored into the determination of spousal support. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, there is a growing recognition of the complex and enduring effects of intimate partner violence. Adam N. Black is a partner in the family law group at Torkin Manes LLP in Toronto. Sign in to access your portfolio
CBC
07-03-2025
- Politics
- CBC
Canada's top court to decide case about Ontario election advertising rules
The Supreme Court of Canada is set to release its decision today about third-party election advertising rules in Ontario that limit spending. Before 2021, third parties in Ontario could spend up to $600,000 on advertising in the six months before a provincial election call. That year, Premier Doug Ford's government stretched that restricted spending period to one year while keeping the spending limit the same. The Progressive Conservative government argued the extended restriction was necessary to protect elections from outside influence, but critics said it amounted to the government trying to silence criticism ahead of the 2022 provincial election. Teachers' unions challenged the law, which a lower court struck down and the province responded by tabling a new bill with the controversial notwithstanding clause — but that decision was then successfully challenged on appeal. The Court of Appeal for Ontario said the use of the notwithstanding clause was fine, but found the law to be unconstitutional because it violated free expression rights of third-party advertisers. It said the new law violated a voter's right to meaningful participation in the electoral process, which isn't subject to the notwithstanding clause, and gave the government one year to create new, Charter-compliant legislation. But Ontario's attorney general sought an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which was granted in late 2023. Prior to a 2017 law enacted by the Liberal government at the time, there were no limits on third-party advertising in Ontario. In the 2014 election, third parties spent $8.64 million, which amounted to 17 per cent of all election spending. Unions were some of the largest third-party advertisers. The Working Families Coalition, known for its anti-Tory ads, spent $2.5 million during the campaign, with contributions from some of the province's biggest unions. The coalition and several teachers' unions are part of the case before the Supreme Court while there are more than a dozen interveners, including the attorneys general of Canada, Alberta and Quebec along with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario.
CBC
05-02-2025
- Business
- CBC
Landlords lose court appeal against Windsor's pilot program to licence rental units
A group of landlords have lost their appeal in a court battle against a City of Windsor Residential Rental Licensing (RRL) pilot project that requires units in certain parts of the city to pass inspections. On Monday, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the group's appeal of Justice Kelly Gorman's ruling that upheld the RRL program last March. Ward 2 city Coun. Fabio Costante said he's delighted by the court's decision and wants to see the landlords pay the city's court costs. "At the core of this is tenant safety and ensuring that the units that are erected in our community are up to building code and fire code," said Costante. Under the rental licencing program, a landlord with four or fewer units must apply for a license for each unit if they operate in Wards 1 and Ward 2. Each licence initially costs $466 and must be renewed each year. It also requires landlords to provide criminal record checks and electrical inspections, which are not covered by the licence cost. The RRL has been voluntary while the court process unfolds. People can learn more through the city's website. Council expected to review program this month These inspections have uncovered "pretty horrible" conditions, according to the city's building department with about 35 per cent of units failing the initial inspection. "It's leaky roofs with damaged plastered ceilings that continue to leak, it's washrooms that are just, you know, you wouldn't want to use," said Windsor's deputy building official Rob Vani, in September. "These would be issues that most people would not want to live in. They're not sanitary conditions or safe conditions." City administration expects to have a report before council this month to present findings related to the year long pilot project. The landlord group that fought the program in court argued that the program is illegal, discriminatory and created in bad faith. Landlords warn costs will be passed on to renters Borys Sozanksi, a spokesperson for the group of landlords fighting the program, previously told CBC News in September that this program will be expensive and those costs will be passed on to people renting out the units. "At some point these properties become not profitable," Sozanski said.
