This article was completed by our parenting coordinator, Vivian Merklinger and one of our articling students, Lisa Chung.

Prior to 1968, divorce was strictly fault-based. Parties wishing to be divorced had to get a private act passed in Parliament to obtain a divorce. The most common ground was fault-based, proof of adultery. The Divorce Act of 1968 changed much of this and introduced divorce based upon a permanent breakdown of the marriage. However, the fault-based grounds of adultery and cruelty continued. As permanent breakdown of the marriage required lengthy separation periods, claims for d

Parenting coordinators play an important role in high-conflict family disputes. They step in where parents remain deadlocked — working through day-to-day disagreements and implementing child-focused strategies outside the courtroom. When the parties cannot reach agreement, parenting coordinators have the authority to issue binding decisions that set parenting arrangements in the best interests of the children. But that authority has limits. A recent British Columbia decision,

It has been a good week for those of us who long for a return to peace, order and good government (an apparent shrinking minority) in accordance with the long traditions of this nation.

Claims for a joint family venture (JFV) arising from a plea of unjust enrichment have become increasingly popular in family law courts in Ontario.

I have a friend (yes, indeed, I have a couple) who practises personal injury law. This past weekend he called me after reading about the Ahluwalia decision (Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16). He visited and over tea, he askedme a simple question (really, a couple).

In the recent Ontario Court of Justice decision of Ankrah v. Amponsah, 2026 ONCJ 197, Justice Stanley Sherr ordered costs following non-compliance with procedural requirements. The decision reinforces that unreasonable conduct during the course of litigation can lead to negative financial consequences.

My friend Steve Benmor made some excellent arguments recently in favour of Zoom attendances on motions (The Zoom paradox: When a judge’s words and his court’s actions collide). He backs it up by quoting the extremelypersuasive comments of Justice Fred Myers of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. I recognize and respect their arguments but let me address a couple of matters not addressed in their submissions on this issue.First let me declare my bias: while I certainly enjo

My wife claims that in any argument, I always want the last word. Perhaps that is so as I find it almost impossible to leave the final word on Bill C-223 to my adversary (in this argument only) Rina Groeneveld. Please pardon the harshness of this response, but often I cannot help myself.

International child abduction cases are a matter of great concern to Canadian and international courts alike. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Convention) was designed to secure the prompt return of children who were wrongfully removed to or retained in any contracting state, and to ensure that the rights of custody and access under the law of one contracting state are effectively respected in the other contracting states.

The recent article by Rina Groeneveld in Law360 Canada is an articulate summary of her position in support of Bill C-223, the Keeping Children Safe Act. Describedby the writer as a “more nuanced” approach to the issue, my view is that,with significant respect, the article misses the point entirely. She writesfrom one vantage point, a former abused woman who provides support toother women who have shared her lived experience.

Why is everything we do politicalized? Family law is on the cusp of social change, and we have seen many positive developments as a result of meaningful debate. However, I object to the latest attempt to politicalize a frequent issue arising in family law matters by the introduction of a private member’s bill in the House of Commons to banish parental alienation as a matter to be considered in high-conflict parenting disputes.

My loyal readers will recall that I practise family law under the belief that there is a hierarchy of blame that exists in almost all high-conflict family disputes. To repeat, the client begins by blaming the opposite party, thereafter the anger is often directed at opposing counsel followed by the same anger directed at the presiding justice if he/she dares to rule against the client. Yes, the last on the ladder is one’s own lawyer who often bears the scorn of the angry clie

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released its reasons for decision in the matter of Lau v. Tao, 2025 ONCA 819, an appeal addressing a series of property-related disputes arising from the breakdown of the parties’ marriage. The decision addresses intergenerational gifts and trusts in the context of equalization under Ontario’s Family Law Act.

It has been a very busy fall and, perhaps like you, I have been hanging on for the Christmas break. For me, it is the best time of the year. In my experience, it is the only time when most if not all family law clients and their lawyers try to step back, take a breath and treat each other with the respect and courtesy that should be a year-round norm.

“The more things change, the more they stay the same.” This famous saying attributed to the French writer Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr has been considered by many. Is it so simple? Does nothing really change or is it more thought-provoking: does superficial change often mask unchanging circumstances?

In the recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision Singh v. Kaur, 2025 ONSC 4122, Justice Imran Kamal underscored that where litigation arises from the conduct of both parties and neither achieves a substantially better outcome, an award of no costs may be appropriate on account of that unreasonable conduct.

Can I have a show of hands, please? Who thinks that uploading cases to Case Center five minutes before a motion is to be argued is civil conduct? Is this even a debatable matter? Believe it or not, recently, opposite counseladmonished me for even thinking that such conduct is uncivil. When I dared to complain, I was told not to be so “personal”! Oh, where have we gone wrong?

My friend, lawyer Steve Benmor, hit a home run with his recent Law360 Canada article: “Do judges remember what it was like to be a lawyer?” I will not even try to expand upon his views; there is no need. He hits all the pointsI would have made and more. I agree entirely with him. Rather than a “rinse and repeat,” I want, in this article, to reflect and focus on his analysis of the mounting challenges of being “the solicitor of record.”