By Kayleigh Pink, Associate Research Lawyer,
Lam Family Law*

2025 is off to an exciting start in Ontario family law! Both the Court of Appeal and the Superior Court of Justice have released several notable decisions. This blog highlights a few standout cases that should be on every Ontario family lawyer’s radar, with bullet points outlining the central issues and direct links to the relevant CanLII paragraphs for easy reference.

Court of Appeal for Ontario

1. Imputing income where family violence: Kholi v. Thom, 2025 ONCA 200 (CanLII), S. Coroza J.A. & L. Sossin J.A., for the panel.

  • The ONCA found that the trial judge erred in imputing income to a wife who was the victim of family violence without specifically considering whether that violence affected her earning ability: para 5.
  • The ONCA considered the general propositions relating to family violence in the context of child and spousal support determinations and the proper interpretation of s. 15.2(5) of the Divorce Act (spousal misconduct): paras 135-136.

2. Parenting orders for adult children: D.F. v. R.W.F., 2025 ONCA 129 (CanLII), Coroza J.A., for the panel.

3. Determining the date of separation: Kassabian v Marcarian, 2025 ONCA 239 (CanLII), Madsen J.A., for the panel.

  • The ONCA consolidated the non-exhaustive list of relevant factors to consider when determining the date of separation: paras 24-30, and offered principles to guide the court’s approach to these factors: para 31.
  • The ONCA also confirmed that:
    • determination of a separation date or valuation date “attracts a high level of deference”: para 32;
    • the “court is not obligated to choose between the dates proposed by the parties”: para 33;
    • third party evidence and documentary evidence showing how the parties represented themselves to the world may be helpful: para 34; and
    • “parties may agree to a [separation] date that suits their requirements, while litigating remaining issues”: para 35.

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

4. Failed Charter challenge to spousal support restriction due to a foreign divorce and collateral attack on prior recognition of foreign divorce: Mehralian v. Dunmore, 2025 ONSC 649 (CanLII), Mathen J.

  • Previously, the ONSC found that the Applicant was not entitled to spousal support due to the Respondent having obtained a “religious divorce in Oman”. The ONCA dismissed the Applicant’s appeal of that finding: para 2.
  • The Applicant brought a Charter challenge, arguing that s. 29 of the Ontario Family Law Act (definition of “spouse”) and the judicial interpretation of s. 4 of the Divorce Act (jurisdiction in corollary relief proceedings) violate s. 15 of the Charter: para 1.
  • Justice Mathen concluded that the Applicant’s constitutional challenge was a collateral attack on the court’s prior rulings that the parties’ foreign divorce was valid, for which she did not exhaust available grounds of appeal: paras 55-69.
  • For “completeness”, the court considered the Applicant’s constitutional challenge and found that “even if this motion is not a collateral attack, it cannot succeed”: para 70.
  • The Applicant’s Notice of Constitutional Question was based on marital status only, despite her argument relying on additional prohibited grounds of discrimination: see discussion on this issue at paras 3 & 71-101.
  • Justice Mathen dismissed the Applicant’s Charter challenge, finding that the Applicant failed to establish a prima face claim of discrimination: para 157.

5. Alternative claim for spousal support under Ontario’s Family Law Act would have been permitted despite foreign divorce: Rasaei v. Bahman, 2025 ONSC 2074 (CanLII), Finlayson J.

  • Justice Finlayson found that the parties’ foreign divorce order from Bahrain was not valid and granted the wife spousal support pursuant to the Divorce Act: para 2.
  • In considering the wife’s alternative argument, that even if the foreign divorce was valid she should be able to claim spousal support under the Family Law Act, Justice Finlayson found, arguably in contrast to the current appellate jurisprudence on this issue, that “persons who were formerly married and divorced, are still able to apply for spousal support under the Family Law Act. A divorce on its own, whether foreign or domestic, does not deprive a court of its jurisdiction.”: para 5 (see lengthy analysis on this issue at paras 27-102).
  • As such, Justice Finlayson found that if the parties’ divorce ought to have been recognized, he still would have found the wife entitled to claim spousal support under the Family Law Act: paras 5-6.
  • Justice Finlayson noted that “while a lower court’s ability to depart from the binding precedent of a higher court is tightly limited, it still exists”. His Honour cited from Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) (2015), where the SCC stated “stare decisis is not a straitjacket that condemns the law to stasis”. The SCC found that trial courts can reconsider “settled rulings of higher courts” where (1) “a new legal issue is raised” and (2) “there is a change in the circumstances or evidence that ‘fundamentally shifts the parameters of the debate’”: para 45.
  • In the further alternative, Justice Finlayson found that “in the unique circumstances of this case, the wife was able to claim spousal support based on section 29(b) [of the Family Law Act] since the parties resumed cohabitation after the foreign divorce, because they were in a relationship of some permanence, and they have a child together.”: para 5.

6. Lack of jurisdiction to enforce a foreign order under r. 1(8) of the Family Law Rules: Nguyen v. Hollmeyer, 2025 ONSC 1682 (CanLII), Price J.

  • Justice Price found that the court lacked jurisdiction to enforce a foreign (Swiss) parenting order pursuant to r. 1(8) of the Family Law Rules where the court order had not been recognized in Ontario under s. 41 of the Children’s Law Reform Act: para 64.

7. Vocational assessments as expert evidence and “first time” experts: Sud v. Sud, 2025 ONSC 1268 (CanLII), Breithaupt Smith J.

  • Justice Breithaupt Smith confirmed that vocational assessments are an “expert discipline”: paras 4-5.
  • While Justice J. Breithaupt Smith noted that she would be alert to an expert witness not having testified in previous matters as part of the evidentiary gate-keeping function, she agreed with the Court of Appeal for Alberta that “there is no rule that the evidence of a ‘first time’ expert cannot be accepted.”: para 11.

*with thanks to Vanessa Lam for her suggestions and edits.
 

This blog is informational only and should not be relied on as legal advice.