Instructions Specific to This Exam

1. This examination contains four questions of unequal value, worth a total of 100 marks.

2. Suggested time allocations are provided for guidance only. Candidates remain responsible for managing the three-hour examination period.

3. Unless otherwise stated, assume that:

   • the parties reside in Ontario;

   • Ontario provincial family legislation applies where the matter falls within provincial jurisdiction; and

   • the current Divorce Act, Federal Child Support Guidelines, Family Law Act, and Children’s Law Reform Act apply where relevant.

4. You will be assessed primarily on your knowledge and application of the legislation, cases and principles contained in the assigned materials, including your ability to:

   • identify the legal issues raised by the facts;

   • select the appropriate statutory framework;

   • distinguish federal and provincial family-law rights where necessary;

   • apply the governing principles closely to the facts;

   • assess competing arguments; and

   • reach reasoned conclusions.

5. No marks are awarded for merely reproducing or summarizing the facts. Use the facts in your legal analysis.

6. Each question is independent. Do not import facts or conclusions from another question.

7. In parenting matters, the best interests of the child govern. Do not assume that:

   • equal parenting time is presumptively required;

   • a parent has a superior claim because of gender;

   • a child’s stated preference is automatically decisive; or

   • misconduct between spouses is relevant unless it bears upon parenting or the child’s interests.

8. Where family violence is raised, consider the statutory concept broadly. Do not limit the analysis to physical assault. Where relevant, consider patterns of coercive or controlling behaviour and their effect upon:

   • safety;

   • parenting;

   • communication;

   • decision-making; and

   • the ability of the parties to cooperate.

9. In relocation questions, distinguish:

   • the ordinary best-interests analysis;

   • the additional statutory relocation factors;

   • the applicable notice and objection requirements; and

   • any statutory burden of proof.

10. In child-support questions, distinguish among:

    • determination of income;

    • table support;

    • shared-parenting adjustments;

    • special or extraordinary expenses;

    • retroactive support; and

    • variation of an existing order.

11. Do not assume that voluntary reduction of income automatically reduces support. Conversely, do not assume that every career change amounts to intentional underemployment.

12. In Ontario property questions, keep distinct:

    • legal ownership;

    • calculation of net family property;

    • excluded property;

    • date-of-marriage deductions;

    • equalization;

    • unequal division;

    • and rights relating to possession or disposition of a matrimonial home.

13. An unequal division of net family properties is exceptional. Do not treat ordinary unfairness or an unattractive result as sufficient without applying the statutory standard.

14. Do not assume that unmarried cohabitants in Ontario have the same statutory property rights as married spouses. Analyze:

    • statutory support rights; and

    • equitable property claims
      separately.

15. Where unjust enrichment is raised, distinguish the existence of the cause of action from the appropriate remedy and the method by which any monetary award is quantified.

16. The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines may assist with amount and duration once entitlement to spousal support is established. They do not themselves create entitlement.

17. Interjurisdictional orders and child-protection proceedings are outside the scope of this examination.

18. Full case citations are unnecessary. Where authority is relevant, the case name and applicable statutory provision are sufficient.

19. Answer the question actually asked. Avoid generic essays or memorized checklists unrelated to the facts.

20. Write clear, organized answers in complete sentences.

QUESTION ONE

30 marks — suggested time: 54 minutes

FACTS

Elise Montfort and Adrian Bellamy were married for eleven years. They separated two years ago and were divorced last year.

They have two children:

• Celia, age 13; and

• Noah, age 8.

The family has lived in Guelph, Ontario, since Celia was three.

Following separation, Elise and Adrian negotiated a parenting plan that was incorporated into a parenting order under the Divorce Act.

The children spend alternating weeks with each parent.

The order provides that Elise and Adrian share major decision-making responsibility concerning:

• education;

• non-emergency health care;

• significant extracurricular activities; and

• religious upbringing.

Both parents have substantially complied with the order.

The proposed move

Elise works as a senior environmental consultant.

Her current position requires frequent overnight travel throughout southwestern Ontario. She earns approximately $108,000 per year.

She has now been offered a position in Ottawa paying $162,000 per year.

The new position would involve substantially less travel and permit her to work from home three days per week.

Elise has also been in a relationship for eighteen months with Luc Renard, who lives in Ottawa with his own two children.

Elise proposes to relocate to Ottawa with Celia and Noah.

She gives Adrian formal written notice 63 days before the proposed move.

The notice contains:

• the proposed Ottawa address;

• the proposed moving date;

• the reason for the relocation; and

• a proposed revised parenting schedule.

Adrian delivers a written objection 17 days later.

The proposed parenting schedule

Elise proposes that the children reside primarily with her during the school year.

Adrian would have:

• one long weekend each month;

• half of the winter and March school breaks;

• alternating Thanksgiving and Easter weekends;

• six weeks each summer; and

• video calls whenever reasonably requested.

Elise offers to pay approximately 70% of the children's transportation expenses between Guelph and Ottawa.

She says the Ottawa job would allow her to be:

“far more physically available to the children than I am under my current travel schedule.”

Adrian is a self-employed architect.

His income varies between $115,000 and $140,000.

He works primarily from a home office and has considerable flexibility to attend:

• school events;

• medical appointments;

• sports practices; and

• extracurricular activities.

Adrian's parents live fifteen minutes away.

They see the children several times each week.

Noah plays hockey with the same local team he has been on for three seasons.

Celia attends a secondary school with a strong music program and has a close group of friends.

Celia's position

Celia tells the family counsellor:

“I think I want to move to Ottawa.”

She is interested in a specialized performing-arts program available near Elise's proposed home.

She also likes Luc and his children.

Later in the interview, however, Celia says:

“I don't want Dad thinking I'm choosing Mom. I still want to see him all the time.”

She also reports:

“Mom says Ottawa could be our chance to get away from Dad always trying to control everything.”

The counsellor does not express an opinion about whether Celia has been influenced by either parent.

Noah's position

Noah says:

“I don't want to move. My team is here and Grandpa picks me up from school on Thursdays.”

He also says he wants to continue spending:

“the same amount of time with Mom and Dad.”

The parties' relationship

During the marriage, Adrian:

• insisted that Elise provide him with the passwords to their joint bank and credit-card accounts;

• regularly questioned purchases exceeding $100;

• used the family's location-sharing application to monitor where Elise was;

• sometimes sent ten or fifteen messages in an hour if she did not respond;

• discouraged her from travelling socially without him; and

• on two occasions told her that, if she left the marriage, he would make sure the children understood that she had “broken up the family.”

There is no allegation that Adrian physically assaulted Elise or the children.

Since separation, Adrian has generally complied with the parenting order.

However, he continues to send Elise numerous messages about:

• where she is;

• who is present when the children are with her;

• whether Luc sleeps at her home; and

• how she spends money on the children.

On one occasion, after Elise refused to answer questions about Luc, Adrian wrote:

“You don't get to hide things from me when my children are involved.”

Elise says these communications leave her anxious and make joint decision-making difficult.

Adrian says:

“She calls any disagreement controlling. I ask questions because we share responsibility for our children.”

He notes that there have been no police charges, restraining orders or findings of family violence.

Adrian's response to the relocation

Adrian argues that the move would:

• fundamentally alter the equal parenting arrangement;

• reduce him from an ordinary weekday parent to a long-distance parent;

• remove the children from their school and extended family;

• and particularly harm Noah.

He also argues:

“Elise admitted that if the court refuses the relocation, she will probably stay in Guelph because she isn't willing to move without the children. That proves the relocation isn't necessary.”

Elise responds that whether she would personally move without the children should not decide what is in the children's best interests.

QUESTION

Advise Elise and Adrian concerning whether the proposed relocation should be authorized.

Address the applicable Divorce Act framework, the significance of the existing equal parenting arrangement, the children's views, the allegations of coercive or controlling conduct, and the parties' respective relocation proposals.

30 MARKS

QUESTION TWO

25 marks — suggested time: 45 minutes

FACTS

Soraya Nadeau and Marek Hollis divorced in 2020.

They have two children:

• Amélie, now 15; and

• Jonas, now 11.

A 2020 consent order requires Marek to pay child support.

At that time:

• Soraya earned $88,000 per year;

• Marek earned $145,000 per year.

The order also requires the parties to exchange income information annually by June 1.

The children presently spend approximately 43% of their parenting time with Marek and 57% with Soraya.

Neither party disputes that this has been the actual arrangement for the past three years.

Marek's increased earnings

Marek worked in institutional software sales.

His total income was:

• $193,000 in 2021;

• $211,000 in 2022; and

• $226,000 in 2023.

A significant portion consisted of performance bonuses.

Marek did not provide Soraya with his complete tax returns during those years.

In June 2022, Soraya emailed him:

“Your support is still based on $145,000. Please send your full return and Notice of Assessment so we can update it.”

Marek sent a letter from his employer identifying his base salary as $151,000.

He wrote:

“The rest is unpredictable bonus money. I don't think support should be recalculated every time I have one good year.”

Soraya did not commence proceedings then.

She says she could not afford a lawyer and assumed Marek would eventually provide the required information.

In 2023 she asked again.

Marek did not respond.

Marek changes careers

In January 2024, Marek resigned.

He opened a small cycling-tour company.

He says he had become:

“completely burned out from corporate sales”

and had wanted to build an outdoor-tourism business for years.

He invested approximately $190,000 of his own savings into the company.

The business paid him employment income of:

• $63,000 in 2024; and

• an annualized rate of approximately $78,000 in 2025.

The business is growing, but it has not yet generated significant profit.

Six months after his resignation, Marek's previous employer offered him a similar position paying a base salary of $175,000 plus commissions.

He declined.

He says:

“I'm entitled to choose a career I can actually tolerate.”

Soraya responds:

“He is entitled to change careers, but the children should not finance that decision.”

Current parenting costs

Because each parent maintains a home large enough for both children, Marek says that simply comparing the Guideline table amounts would overstate what he should pay.

Soraya says:

“Forty-three percent is barely over the line. I still pay for most school clothes, school lunches, phones and ordinary activities.”

Amélie has been seeing a registered psychologist following significant anxiety symptoms.

Her annual therapy cost is approximately $6,000.

Soraya's benefits reimburse $1,500.

Marek does not dispute that the therapy was recommended by Amélie's physician.

Jonas plays competitive hockey.

The annual cost is now approximately $12,000.

Before separation, the family regularly spent approximately $5,000 to $6,000 each year on his hockey and related training.

Marek says the present elite-level program is:

“a luxury chosen by Soraya.”

Soraya says Jonas has progressed significantly and both parents encouraged him to try out.

The application

In January 2025, Soraya applies for:

1. increased ongoing child support;

2. retroactive adjustment of support for prior years;

3. contribution to Amélie's therapy expenses;

4. contribution to Jonas's hockey expenses; and

5. an order imputing income to Marek above his present $78,000 salary.

Marek argues that:

• shared parenting substantially reduces his table obligation;

• Soraya waited too long to bring the claim;

• past bonuses should not be revisited;

• and his present income reflects a legitimate career change rather than underemployment.

QUESTION

Advise Soraya and Marek concerning the current and retroactive child-support issues.

Address the shared-parenting arrangement, Marek's historical and present income, the delayed disclosure, and the proposed expenses for Amélie and Jonas.

25 MARKS

QUESTION THREE

25 marks — suggested time: 45 minutes

FACTS

Coralie Winslow and Brennan Colebrook married in 2011.

For purposes of this question, assume that June 30, 2025 is the valuation date under the Ontario Family Law Act.

They have one child, Mira, age 10.

The matrimonial home

Coralie and Brennan are registered as equal joint owners of the matrimonial home.

As of the valuation date:

• the property is worth $1.4 million;

• the mortgage balance is $500,000; and

• total equity is therefore approximately $900,000.

In 2018, Coralie inherited $240,000 from her aunt.

Her aunt's will simply left the money to Coralie personally. It contained no special provision concerning income earned from the inheritance.

Coralie used:

• $200,000 to pay down the mortgage and finance a major addition to the matrimonial home; and

• $40,000 to purchase investments held in an account solely in her name.

The separate investment account is now worth $55,000.

Coralie says:

“The entire $240,000 came from my aunt, so all of it should be excluded from equalization.”

Other property

On the valuation date Coralie owns:

• her one-half interest in the home equity: $450,000;

• pension and retirement assets: $300,000;

• ordinary savings and investments: $120,000;

• the separate inherited investment account: $55,000.

She has ordinary personal debts of $20,000.

Coralie had no material property or debt on the date of marriage.

Brennan owns:

• his one-half interest in the home equity: $450,000;

• shares in his consulting corporation: $500,000;

• retirement assets: $200,000;

• cash and ordinary investments: $50,000.

His liabilities on the valuation date total $220,000.

Of that amount:

• $40,000 consists of ordinary personal debt; and

• $180,000 arises from leveraged cryptocurrency trading undertaken during the final five months of the marriage.

Brennan owned a non-registered investment portfolio worth $150,000 on the date of marriage.

That portfolio was later sold.

None of the funds can now be traced into a particular current asset.

The cryptocurrency losses

During the last year of the marriage, the spouses argued frequently about money.

Without telling Coralie, Brennan borrowed $180,000 through personal credit facilities and used it to make highly leveraged cryptocurrency trades.

He initially made approximately $60,000.

He then increased the positions substantially.

By the valuation date, the borrowed money and his gains had been lost.

Text messages to a friend include:

“One big win and I can retire before Coralie even knows I borrowed it.”

and later:

“I doubled down. If this goes wrong I'm cooked.”

Brennan says:

“It was an investment. Lots of investments lose money. The debt existed on valuation day and has to count.”

Coralie says it would be unconscionable if his secret speculation reduced his net family property and required her to make an equalization payment to him.

The home after separation

Coralie has remained in the matrimonial home with Mira.

Brennan rented an apartment nearby.

Three months after separation, Brennan entered the house while Coralie and Mira were away and changed the exterior locks.

He emailed Coralie:

“I'm half owner. I have as much right to the house as you do. You can arrange a time to pick up your things.”

Coralie had the locks changed again the following day and resumed occupying the home.

Brennan now wants the house listed immediately.

Coralie refuses.

She says Mira is already struggling with the separation and should remain in the home until the end of the school year.

Brennan says:

• he cannot afford both the mortgage contribution and his apartment indefinitely;

• his business records and home office remain in the house;

• and Coralie can rent a smaller property in the same neighbourhood.

No allegation of physical violence is made.

Coralie seeks:

1. equalization;

2. an unequal division if necessary because of the cryptocurrency losses;

3. an order preventing Brennan from selling or encumbering the home without her consent; and

4. exclusive possession of the home for a temporary period.

QUESTION

Advise Coralie and Brennan concerning the principal Ontario property-law issues arising from these facts.

Your answer should address the inheritance, the net family property calculations, Brennan's cryptocurrency debt, and the parties' respective rights concerning the matrimonial home.

25 MARKS

QUESTION FOUR 

20 marks — suggested time: 36 minutes

FACTS

Odette Fournier and Graham Telford began living together in 2012.

They never married.

They separated in February 2026 after approximately fourteen years of continuous cohabitation.

They have no children together.

The beginning of the relationship

When the parties began living together, Graham owned a rural property outside Prince Edward County.

The property was registered solely in his name.

At that time:

• its market value was approximately $340,000; and

• the mortgage was approximately $250,000.

Graham operated a small vineyard and seasonal event business from the property.

The business was then worth approximately $180,000.

Odette worked as a restaurant operations manager and earned approximately $82,000 per year.

Odette leaves her employment

Three years into the relationship, Graham's vineyard began hosting:

• weddings;

• corporate events;

• tasting dinners; and

• seasonal festivals.

Graham told Odette:

“If you came into the business full-time, we could actually build something big together.”

Odette resigned from her restaurant position.

For the next eleven years, she worked approximately 35 to 50 hours per week in the vineyard business.

She:

• managed event bookings;

• negotiated with wedding clients;

• performed bookkeeping;

• hired seasonal workers;

• supervised catering;

• developed social-media campaigns;

• and managed relationships with tourism operators.

She received no salary.

The business paid many household expenses, including:

• groceries;

• vehicles;

• vacations; and

• some personal expenses.

Graham says:

“She was fully supported. It isn't true that she worked for nothing.”

Odette says:

“We treated my work as my contribution to what we were building together.”

The property

Odette also spent approximately $72,000 of her personal savings on improvements to the rural property.

The money paid for:

• renovation of the farmhouse kitchen;

• landscaping;

• conversion of an old barn into an event venue; and

• construction of an outdoor ceremony area.

Odette personally managed much of the renovation work.

The converted barn became the vineyard's principal wedding venue.

The rural property is now worth approximately $1.65 million.

The mortgage is $310,000.

Graham remains the sole registered owner.

The business

The vineyard and event company is now valued at approximately $2.4 million.

Graham owns all of its shares.

The parties maintained:

• a joint household account;

• separate personal accounts; and

• no written cohabitation agreement.

They frequently referred to the vineyard as:

“our retirement.”

When discussing expansion with a lender in 2021, Graham stated in Odette's presence:

“Odette and I built this place together.”

The company nevertheless remained entirely in Graham's name.

Separation

Following separation, Graham tells Odette:

“We weren't married. What's mine is mine. You lived here without paying rent for fourteen years and the business paid most of your expenses.”

Odette now has limited personal savings.

At age 49, she has returned to salaried employment but presently earns approximately $58,000 per year.

Graham earns approximately $240,000 annually through salary, dividends and other benefits from the business.

Odette seeks:

1. one-half of the increase in value of Graham's property and business;

2. alternatively, a constructive trust or monetary award based on her contributions; and

3. spousal support.

Graham says:

• Ontario equalization law does not apply because they never married;

• Odette received substantial benefits throughout the relationship;

• much of the increased value came from rising real-estate values and Graham's winemaking expertise;

• and Odette is now self-supporting and should receive no support.

QUESTION

Advise Odette and Graham concerning their respective rights following separation.

Address both the property claims and spousal-support claim.

20 MARKS