Right to counsel after arrest Overview In R. v. Janjua, 2026 ONCJ 527, the Ontario Court of Justice considered charges of impaired driving and operating with a blood-alcohol concentration at or above 80 mg/100 mL following a single-vehicle collision. The accused was injured and taken to hospital, where breath samples registered 140 mg/100 mL and 130 mg/100 mL. However, the central issue was not his blood-alcohol concentration but it was whether the Crown could prove beyond a

Case Summary: K.N. v. L.K., 2026 ONSC 4771 Overview This decision addresses a complex family law dispute involving parenting arrangements, decision-making responsibility, spousal support, and litigation costs. The Court found that the father, K.N., was overwhelmingly successful at trial, having obtained primary residence of the children, sole decision-making responsibility, and significant relief concerning parenting and child support. The Court determined that the mother's f

R. v. W, 2026 ONCJ 522 Overview In R. v. W, 2026 ONCJ 522, the Ontario Court of Justice considered allegations of sexual assault and sexual exploitation against a teacher arising from an incident at a high-school winter formal. The complainant, a 16-year-old student, alleged that the accused intentionally touched her chest while on the dance floor. The accused denied intentionally touching her and pleaded not guilty. Following trial, Justice Fiorucci acquitted the accused of

KV v L et al., 2026 ONSC 5053 Overview In KV v. L et al., 2026 ONSC 5053, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered whether one party in complex family litigation should be required to provide the other with interim funding for legal and expert fees. The applicant sought $250,000—$150,000 for legal fees and $100,000 for expert fees. The parties disputed whether they had been legally married, and the litigation also involved spousal support, property, trust and related

M v. M, 2026 ONSC 4259 In M v. M, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered a lengthy marriage marked by allegations of physical violence, threats, psychological abuse, isolation, financial control, harassment and intimidation. The case is particularly significant because it applies the Supreme Court of Canada’s newly recognized tort of intimate partner violence (IPV) following Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16. The Court ultimately found that the husband committed t

Stewart v. Perelman, 2026 ONSC 4940 In Stewart v. Perelman, Justice Stevenson of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the respondent father’s motion to reduce temporary child and spousal support on the basis of an alleged substantial decline in his income. The existing July 2025 order attributed annual income of $508,000 to the father and required monthly child support of $6,373, monthly spousal support of $11,113, and payment of 73.7% of the children’s s. 7 expens

Impaired operation of vehicle - acquittal and analysis In R. v. Roberts, 2026 ONCJ 524, MR was charged with impaired operation contrary to s. 320.14(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and failure/refusal to comply with an approved-instrument breath demand contrary to s. 320.15(1). The central issue was whether the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe Roberts’s ability to drive was impaired by alcohol, thereby lawfully authorizing both his arrest and the subsequent brea

La France v. Saroli, 2026 ONSC 1783 This Ontario Superior Court decision is principally a high-income common-law spousal support case involving a relatively short relationship, an enormous disparity in wealth, disputed dates of cohabitation, and sharply conflicting credibility evidence. Louise La France sought spousal support and damages for unjust enrichment from Robert Saroli. Justice Centa ultimately awarded her $3 million in lump-sum spousal support, but dismissed her unj

Quinn v. Quinn, 2026 ONSC 3748 Case Overview: Quinn v. Quinn is a 2026 Ontario Superior Court family law decision addressing whether a separation agreement - and specifically a spousal support waiver (Miglin-style release) should be set aside years after execution. The case is also notable because it provides one of Ontario’s rare modern analyses of the non-suit motion in Family Law. Core Legal Issues: The court considered four questions: What is the legal test for a non-suit

R.L. v. M.F., 2025 ONCA 595 Case Overview: R.L. v. M.F. is a significant Ontario Court of Appeal decision on high-income spousal support, clarifying that even a high-earning recipient spouse may remain entitled to support where the marriage created economic interdependence and enabled the payor’s exceptional earning capacity. The appeal focused primarily on entitlement, quantum, duration of support, and prejudgment interest on equalization. Core Facts: Parties were married fo

Turner v. Ross, 2026 ONSC 3592 Case Overview Turner v. Ross is a notable Ontario family law decision addressing an unusual but increasingly common issue: pet ownership disputes after separation. The court had to determine who legally owned a cat, Harrold, after all other family law issues (property, support, parenting) had already been settled. Core Facts: Kevin Turner and Robin Ross separated after a 14-year marriage and share a 14-year-old son, Xander. The only unresolved

In R. v. Francis, 2026 ONSC 2888, the Ontario Superior Court considered whether MAF participated in a violent altercation at a Toronto Community Housing building on February 17, 2024, in which JB sustained a serious laceration to his hand. MAF was charged with: assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and breaching probation by failing to keep the peace. The Crown’s case relied almost entirely on CCTV footage and circumstantial evidence. The video showed: JB ap

In Harris v. Kirby, 2026 ONSC 2536, the Ontario Superior Court resolved several unresolved family law issues between former common-law spouses AH and RK concerning: ownership of a Brampton property, retroactive child support, treatment of investment income, and private school tuition expenses for their two children. The parties had cohabited for approximately nine years and had two children together. Justice Agarwal ruled that: AH held a 50% beneficial interest in the Hogan