SMP Law 2016 Year In Review

SMP Law 2016 Year In Review

As 2016 winds down to a close, SMP Law reports another successful year!  It has been a busy year with motions, trials and court appearances.  See below for a summary of a few of the notable trials.  SMP Law remains committed to providing clients with solutions that work in their best interests!  There are currently three additional trials awaiting the release of judgement – stay tuned!

De Matos v De Matos, 2016 ONSC 5138 (CanLII)

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2016/2016onsc5138/2016onsc5138.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAIcGhpbGJlcnQAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1

After a 9 day trial in May 2016 to change a final order, SMP Law successfully argued that his client should have sole custody of one of the parties’ two children, despite the mother’s allegations that the father was abusive and her request for sole custody of both children. SMP Law also successfully defended the mother’s claim to impute an annual income of $70,000 for support purposes for the years 2013 – 2016, as the court imputed income for only the year of 2014  in the amount of $49,000 as the remaining years were based on the payor’s line 150.  The judge was critical of the school’s interaction with the parties during the parties’ custody dispute. SMP Law also successfully argued for the imputing of income to the mother due to her undeclared cash income.

D’Souza v D’Souza, 2016 ONSC 776 (CanLII)

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2016/2016onsc776/2016onsc776.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAIcGhpbGJlcnQAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=5

After a 7 day trial regarding a change of a final order, on January 29, 2016 the reasons for judgement were released. SMP Law successfully argued that the father should receive sole custody of the parties’ three daughters ages 16, 14, and 11, with the mother having access to the children twice a month on alternating Saturdays from 11 am to 9 pm. SMP Law successfully argued that the mother should pay the father child support ongoing as well as retroactive support.

Crooks v Crooks, 2016 ONSC 1113

http://canadianjusticereviewboard.ca/articles-caselaw/case-law/crooks-v-crooks,-2016-onsc-1113

After the parties settled their issues on the eve of trial, written cost submissions were requested by SMP Law and were submitted. Unfortunately, the trial judge made an error and granted cost in favour of the other party. SMP Law successfully obtained leave to appeal the cost order, something that is rarely granted. The appeal of the cost is scheduled for March 2017.

View COVID-19 Message

Regarding Covid-19:

Our office remains open remotely and is available to assist you by videoconference, phone, and email. Since the Covid-19 closures, SMP Law has assisted our clients with four urgent court matters and continues to have court attendances on motions that the courts have deemed urgent.

At SMP Law, we take the health and safety of our staff and clients as the highest priority. While we recognize the importance of social distancing at this time, we also recognize the importance of continuing to provide you with legal services during the time.  Please contact us at 905-565-9494 or info@smplaw.ca for any questions regarding your legal matter.