John’s Reported Cases

John is known for his sensible approach to family law cases. He knows that keeping his client, the children, and the entire family happy usually means helping the separated spouses or parents to find ways to find the solutions that work best for them.  But sometimes it is not possible to work things out.  Sometimes one side is being unreasonable, maybe even abusive.  When that happens, John is not afraid to go to court.  John has been successful in many precedent setting cases.  These cases have been “ fficially reported”, which means the decisions have not just been released to the parties, but have been published so that other lawyers can use them as precedents.

Below are a list of John’s reported cases, with a breif description.  Click on the case name to read the entire decision.

  • Aliyev v. Aliyev  – high conflict case that “imputed” income to a husband who was being difficult regarding what he earned.  The case also discusses the importance of stabilizing the family situation after separation.  John also prevented the husband from selling the home out from under the wife and children.
  • Appellant v. Toronto District School Board (2017)  – this is an Education Law decision of the Child and Family Services Review Board.  In this decision, John successfully convinced the Child and Family Services Review Board to hear an appeal of a student who had not been formally expelled, but whose principal had kicked him out of school.  The decision stands for the law that a student cannot be removed from an Ontario Public School in relation to his or her behaviour unless the School Board goes through the procedure for expelling student. 
  • Bott v. Bott, after winning an arbitration over child support, John had the courts enforce that child support.  The father refused to pay any support and asked the court, several times, to allow him to pay no support for his children.  In this decisions, Justice McGee agreed with John that the court should not even listen to the father until he tried to pay support.
  • CCAST v. L.S. and A.Z. – in this child protection case, John convinced the appeal court that the original judge had been “manifestly unfair: and that “no reasonable person” would do what the original judge had done.  The appeal court set aside the original judge’s Order.  

  • CCAST v. R.D.S. – in this child protection appeal case, John prevented a children’s aid society from taking a three year old child away from the foster parent, with whom he had lived since birth, and sending him to an uncertain fate to live with relatives he had never met in Brazil.  This case was also reported in the national media.
  • CAS (Oxford) v. W.T.C. – in this precedent setting case before the Ontario Court of Appeal, John successfully argued that systemic delays in the hearing of a parent’s appeal in a children’s aid society case amounted to a breach of her rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The Court also accepted John’s argument that when hearing an appeal, it needed to know the status of the child and the parent at the time of the hearing of the appeal, not just a the time of trial.  The Court said it was the Children’s Aid Society’s obligation to put that information before the court. 
  • C. (K. L.) v. H. (T. J.)  – this is another child support case in which John caught the father trying to hide his true income to get out of paying child support. 
  • C. (K. L.) v. H. (T. J.) (re costs) – this decision follows from the one above. The judge ordered the father to pay of the John’s legal fees for John’s client.
  • Hanna v. Yun – in this decision, John successful had a self-employed contract pay child support based on an income more than $130,000 higher than the support payer admitted he earned.  John fathered evidence to prove the payor’s income was higher than he admitted so that the judge would base child support on John’s calculations rather the husband’s inadequate disclosure.
  • D.S. v. CAST – in this case before the Child and Family Services Review Board, John stopped a children’s aid society from refusing to allow a couple to adopt their own niece.
  • Durham CAS v. V.C. in this child protection case dealing with the Charter rights of autistic children and their parents, John successfully argued that the Charter of Rights case should be heard in Family Court as part of the child protection case.
  • Kroupis-Yanovski v. Yanovski  – in this important appeal case, John successfully argued that parties who chose to use family arbitration can also choose what procedure that they want that arbitration to follow.  Parties are free to choose an arbitration procedure that suits their needs (and wallet) even if that procedure is very different from court procedure. 
  • K. v. Leo Baeck Day School  – in this education law case, John stopped a private school from expelling a child because he had been the victim of bullying.
  • Lawson v. Lawson – in this import Ontario Court of Appeal case, John was one of the successful lawyers arguing several difficult family law issues.
  • Martinez v. Basail – John successful argued that a divorce granted in Cuba should be recognized in Canada, even though neither spouse lived in Cuba at the time of the divorce. This case set the stage for many cases that followed on recognizing foreign divorced and marriages.
  • Sambasivam v. Pulendrarajah – this is the case in which Justice Sherr commented : “Mr. Schuman’s conduct in this case is an example of what lawyers are supposed to do in difficult cases.”
  • R. v. E.B.J. – this old education case dealt with bullying.  This decision  in that case was a precent setting decision on judicial review.
  • Reilly v. Zacharuck – this is case on enforcing a parenting coordinator’s arbitration award where one parent was denying access without good reason.  John successfully enforced the arbitration award, got additional parenting time for his client in a decision that emphasizes the importance of respecting the other parent. 
  • Barbieri v. Vistoli – in this case on parent went from 1 overnight per month with the child to 6 overnights every two weeks (14 days) because the other parent was no supportive of the child’s relationship with both parents.   Also, the judge ordered the matrimonial home and cottage both sold because of concerns over family finances and in order to encourage the parties to move the case to a resolution. 

Follow John on Social Media