Markham Family Lawyer

Home › Family Law › Markham Family Lawyer

Family law reaches into everything that matters: your children, your home, your income, your future. For Markham families, every one of those questions, parenting, child support, spousal support, property, protection from family violence, is decided in a single court: the Newmarket Family Court Branch of the Superior Court of Justice at 50 Eagle St. W., one of Ontario’s Unified Family Court sites. Kazandji Law represents parents, spouses and partners across Markham and York Region in that court and at every negotiating table before it, with a rare advantage: a firm that practises both family law and criminal defence, in a field where the two collide more often than most people expect.

By Fadi Matthew Kazandji, Founding Partner, Kazandji Law. Updated July 2026.

One Court for Everything: the Newmarket Family Court Branch

Ontario runs two different family court models, and knowing which one applies to you shapes everything from forms to strategy. Markham sits in a Unified Family Court area: the Newmarket courthouse is one of the 25 Family Court Branch locations of the Superior Court of Justice, which means every family matter, divorce, division of property, the matrimonial home, decision-making responsibility and parenting time, child and spousal support, restraining orders, child protection and adoption, is heard in one court, in one building, at 50 Eagle St. W. in Newmarket. There is no splitting of issues between two levels of court, and there is no family courthouse in Markham itself: York Region families litigate in Newmarket.

That consolidation is genuinely useful. It means a parenting schedule, a support claim and a property dispute arising from the same separation travel together in front of the same bench. It also means the Newmarket court offers an unusually full toolbox for settlement: case conferences and settlement conferences under the Family Law Rules, Dispute Resolution Officer (DRO) conferences, judicial dispute resolution, and free on-site mediation available at the courthouse. A Markham family lawyer’s job is to know not just the law but this court, its scheduling realities, its conference culture, and which of its many off-ramps fits your family. For an overview of everything our firm handles in this building, see our main family law practice page.

Parenting: Decision-Making Responsibility and Parenting Time

Start with the words, because they changed. Since the 2021 reforms to the federal Divorce Act and Ontario’s Children’s Law Reform Act, courts no longer award custody and access (as the concepts were formerly known). Married and divorcing parents, and unmarried parents alike, now deal in three concepts: decision-making responsibility, responsibility for significant decisions about a child’s health, education, culture, language, religion and significant extra-curricular activities; parenting time, the time a child is in each person’s care; and contact orders, which cover time with non-parents such as grandparents. The terminology is identical under both statutes, so Markham parents use the same vocabulary whether or not they were married; the Divorce Act applies to divorcing spouses and the CLRA to everyone else, in the same Newmarket court.

Every parenting decision runs through a single test: the best interests of the child. Section 16 of the Divorce Act directs the court to consider only the child’s best interests, with primary consideration given to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being. The statutory factors include the child’s relationships with each parent, siblings and grandparents; each parent’s willingness to support the child’s relationship with the other parent; the child’s own views and preferences, weighed by age and maturity; the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing, including Indigenous heritage; any family violence and its impact; and any other proceeding or order, civil or criminal, relevant to the child’s safety and well-being.

Two misconceptions do real damage in negotiations. First, there is no presumption of a 50/50 schedule: the maximum-parenting-time principle in s. 16(6) directs as much time with each parent as is consistent with the child’s best interests, a child-centred principle, not an equal-time rule. Second, decision-making responsibility is not all-or-nothing: it can be allocated to one parent, shared, or divided by subject matter, and during their own parenting time each parent ordinarily has exclusive authority over day-to-day decisions. Courts can order supervised parenting time, build communication protocols into orders, and must incorporate a parenting plan the parties have agreed on unless it is contrary to the child’s best interests. We help Markham parents design plans that survive real life, school calendars, shift work, extended-family obligations, travel, and we litigate firmly when a workable plan is refused. Our parenting and decision-making responsibility page covers this area in depth.

Relocation: Moving With, or Away From. Your Children

Few parenting issues are as combustible as a proposed move, and since 2021 the Divorce Act has governed it with a precise code. A relocation is any change of residence, of the child, or of a parent with parenting time or decision-making responsibility, likely to have a significant impact on the child’s relationships with the people in their life. A parent proposing one must give at least 60 days’ written notice in the prescribed form, including the proposed new arrangements; the other parent then has 30 days to object by prescribed form or court application. If no objection arrives within 30 days and no order prohibits the move, the relocation may proceed. Even an ordinary change of residence that falls short of relocation requires written notice of the date, new address and contact information, with an exception available by court order where there is a risk of family violence.

Contested relocations turn on burdens the statute assigns deliberately. Where the child’s time is divided substantially equally, the parent proposing the move must prove it is in the child’s best interests; where the child spends the vast majority of time with the relocating parent, the objecting parent must prove it is not; in every other case both parents share the burden. The court weighs additional factors on top of the ordinary best-interests analysis, the reasons for the move, its impact on the child, each person’s time with and involvement in the child’s life, compliance with notice obligations, existing geographic terms, and the reasonableness of the relocating parent’s proposal, and it may apportion the travel costs of maintaining the relationship. One protection worth knowing: the court is barred from asking the relocating parent the old double-bind question of whether they would move without the child. These cases are won with evidence and planning, not improvisation.

Child Support in Markham: Tables, Add-Ons and Shared Time

Child support is the most rule-bound corner of family law, and that is by design: the Federal Child Support Guidelines exist to set a fair standard, reduce conflict and make outcomes predictable. The presumptive rule is the table amount, fixed by the payor’s income, the number of children, and the payor’s province of residence, using the Ontario table. An important 2025 development: new federal tables came into force on October 1, 2025, the first update since 2017, reflecting current tax rules. The new tables do not automatically rewrite orders made before that date, but any new order or recalculation uses the updated figures, a genuine reason for many Markham parents to have existing arrangements reviewed.

On top of the table amount sit s. 7 special or extraordinary expenses, shared between parents in proportion to income after accounting for the child’s own contribution and any subsidies or credits. The statutory list includes child care needed because of a parent’s work, illness, disability or education; the child’s share of medical and dental insurance premiums; health-related expenses exceeding insurance reimbursement by at least $100 a year, orthodontics, counselling, physiotherapy, prescriptions, glasses; extraordinary school expenses; post-secondary education; and extraordinary extracurricular activities. In a community like Markham, where competitive sports, music programs and tutoring are a way of life, s. 7 is where much of the real money, and much of the real conflict, lives.

Parenting schedules change the math. Where one parent has the child for more than 60 per cent of the year, the straight table amount applies. Where children are split between households, the two table amounts are set off against each other. And where each parent has the child at least 40 per cent of the time over the year, s. 9 applies: the court considers both parents’ table amounts, the increased costs of shared parenting, and each household’s conditions, means and needs, not an automatic set-off, whatever popular wisdom says. Incomes over $150,000, undue-hardship claims (which fail if the claiming household would still enjoy the higher standard of living), and retroactive support, governed by the Supreme Court’s framework in D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37, which weighs the reason for delay, blameworthy conduct, the child’s circumstances and hardship, all have their own rules. Ontario also runs an online Child Support Service that can set up or recalculate straightforward support administratively. Full details on our child support page.

Spousal Support: Entitlement First, Numbers Second

Spousal support is the least intuitive support obligation because it does not flow automatically from marriage or separation, entitlement must be established first. The Supreme Court has recognized three foundations: compensatory support, rooted in Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813, which compensates a spouse for economic disadvantage absorbed during the relationship (the classic example being a career subordinated to child-rearing); non-compensatory or needs-based support; and contractual support, recognized in Bracklow v. Bracklow, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420, which confirmed all three bases. Under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act, the court weighs the parties’ condition, means, needs and other circumstances, including the length of cohabitation and the functions each spouse performed, and it may not consider spousal misconduct. The statutory objectives are to recognize economic advantages and disadvantages from the marriage and its breakdown, apportion the financial consequences of child care above child support, relieve hardship, and promote each spouse’s self-sufficiency within a reasonable time, insofar as practicable.

Unmarried partners in Markham are not shut out. Under Ontario’s Family Law Act, a partner can claim spousal support after cohabiting for at least three years, or in a relationship of some permanence of any length if the couple has a child together. As for amounts: the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines generate the ranges lawyers and judges discuss daily, but they are advisory only, never legislated, never binding entitlements, and child support always takes priority over spousal support where means are limited (s. 15.3). Positioning a support claim (or defending one) is strategy work: income analysis, entitlement theory, duration and review terms all move the outcome substantially.

Property and the Matrimonial Home

Ontario divides property between married spouses through equalization of net family property: each spouse totals what they own at separation, deducts debts and what they brought into the marriage, and the spouse with the higher net family property pays the other half the difference. Certain property is excluded, gifts and inheritances from third parties after marriage, certain personal-injury damages, life-insurance proceeds and property traceable to them, but the matrimonial home is singular: its full value is shared even if one spouse owned it before the marriage or received it by gift or inheritance, and both spouses have an equal right to possession of it while the issues are sorted out. Courts can depart from an equal split only in narrow circumstances where equalization would be extremely unfair, a deliberately high bar. Claims are time-limited: six years from separation or two years from divorce, whichever comes first.

Common-law partners live under an entirely different regime: no equalization at all. Property belongs to the person who acquired it, and a partner who contributed to an asset in the other’s name must advance claims based on trust and unjust-enrichment principles, or, far better, plan ahead with a cohabitation agreement. Because property and divorce travel together for married couples, we cover equalization mechanics, valuation dates and the home in depth on our Markham divorce lawyer page and our divorce practice page.

Issue	Married spouses	Common-law partners
Property division	Equalization of net family property under the Family Law Act, higher-NFP spouse pays half the difference	No equalization; ownership follows title, subject to trust and unjust-enrichment claims
The home	Matrimonial home’s full value shared; equal right of possession regardless of title	No special matrimonial-home status; ordinary ownership principles
Spousal support	Divorce Act s. 15.2 (or FLA)	FLA after 3 years’ cohabitation, or any length with a child in a relationship of some permanence
Parenting terms	Divorce Act parenting orders	CLRA parenting orders, same terminology since 2021
Child support	Federal Child Support Guidelines	Same table approach under Ontario’s guidelines

Marriage Contracts, Cohabitation Agreements and Separation Agreements

The strongest family law outcomes are usually the ones no judge ever sees. Ontario law lets couples write their own rules at three moments: before or during marriage (a marriage contract), while living together unmarried (a cohabitation agreement), and at the end of a relationship (a separation agreement). These agreements can deal with property division, support obligations and treatment of the home, and they are especially valuable for common-law couples, who otherwise have no property-sharing regime at all, and for spouses bringing businesses, inheritances or prior-family obligations into a relationship.

The limits matter as much as the powers. Domestic contracts must be in writing, signed and witnessed. They cannot pre-decide parenting: decision-making responsibility and parenting time are always determined by the child’s best interests at the time, not by a clause negotiated years earlier. And an agreement’s durability depends on how it was made, complete and honest financial disclosure and genuinely independent legal advice for each party are what allow a separation agreement to hold when tested later. An agreement signed in a hurry, without disclosure, is an invitation to litigation rather than protection from it. We draft, review and, where the process that produced them was unfair, challenge domestic contracts for clients across Markham and York Region.

Family Violence and the Criminal-Family Overlap

Family law changed profoundly when Parliament wrote family violence into the Divorce Act. The statutory definition is broad and deliberately so: any conduct by a family member towards another family member that is violent or threatening, that constitutes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, or that causes a family member to fear for their safety, whether or not the conduct constitutes a criminal offence, and whether or not anyone was ever charged. It expressly includes physical and sexual abuse, threats, harassment and stalking, psychological abuse, financial abuse, threats against animals or property, and, for children, direct or indirect exposure to such conduct. Family violence and its impact are mandatory best-interests considerations in every parenting case, and the court must examine its nature, seriousness and frequency, any pattern of coercive control, whether it was directed at or witnessed by the child, and the risk of it continuing.

Here is what most families do not see coming: the family court is also required to look outward at the criminal justice system. Section 16(3)(k) obliges the court to consider any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure relevant to the child’s safety, and s. 7.8 imposes a duty on the court to check for related criminal and civil-protection proceedings so the two systems do not issue conflicting orders. In practice, a domestic assault charge, and the bail or release conditions that come with it, such as no-contact terms and restrictions on attending the family home, can reshape parenting time and occupation of the home overnight, long before any family judge weighs in.

This is where Kazandji Law is built differently from a family-only boutique. We defend domestic assault charges in Markham and we run family files in the same courthouse region, so we can coordinate both tracks: seeking release conditions that leave room for lawful parenting arrangements, timing family court steps sensibly around a criminal proceeding, and making sure nothing said or agreed in one forum quietly damages the other. Whichever side of a family-violence allegation you are on, the interplay between the two systems is not a detail, it is often the whole game.

Resolving Your Case Without a Trial

Modern family law is engineered to settle. The Divorce Act now imposes duties on parties themselves: to exercise parenting rights consistently with the child’s best interests, to protect children from conflict arising from the proceeding, to provide complete, accurate and up-to-date information, to comply with orders, and, to the extent it is appropriate, to try to resolve matters through a family dispute resolution process such as negotiation, mediation or collaborative law. Every application and answer filed must certify the party is aware of these duties. The appropriateness qualifier matters: where safety or coercive control is an issue, mediation may not be appropriate at all, and the law recognizes that.

The Newmarket court supports settlement unusually well. Free on-site mediation is available at the family court on your court date; off-site mediation can be arranged at any time on a sliding-scale fee tied to income, for example, a party earning under $60,000 pays between $5 and $105 per hour depending on dependants, with government-contracted mediators who must carry at least 60 hours of family mediation training and 21 hours of training in screening for intimate-partner violence. The court’s own conference track (case conference, settlement conference and beyond), DRO conferences and judicial dispute resolution give parties several more structured chances to end the case by agreement. We prepare every file as if it will be tried, because that is what makes the other side settle sensibly, and we treat every conference as a genuine opportunity to finish.

Local Logistics: MIP, FLIC and Filing From Markham

A few practical rails guide every new Newmarket family case. Most parties must attend the Mandatory Information Program (MIP), separate free sessions for each party, completed before the first appearance or case conference and no later than 45 days after the case starts (one hour where no children are involved, two hours where they are), with a certificate of attendance filed with the court. Exemptions exist, including cases on consent and applications dealing only with a divorce. The courthouse hosts a Family Law Information Centre (FLIC), where information and referral coordinators, court-forms help, referrals to court-connected mediation and Legal Aid Ontario duty counsel (for eligible parties) are available free of charge.

Paperwork runs on the Family Law Rules: financial disclosure through Form 13 (support claims only) or Form 13.1 (property and support), backed by a Form 13A certificate of disclosure; a responding party’s Answer is due within 30 days if served in Canada or the United States, 60 days if served abroad; and the conference track moves from case conference through settlement conference toward trial only if settlement fails. Family court documents can now be filed online through Ontario’s family filing portal, a real convenience for Markham parties who would otherwise be driving to Newmarket for counter service. We handle the entire procedural layer so clients can focus on decisions, not forms.

Why Kazandji Law as Your Markham Family Lawyer

Kazandji Law, founded by Fadi Matthew Kazandji, serves Markham from offices at 7191 Yonge St in Thornhill, minutes from the city, and 180 John St in downtown Toronto. Families choose us for three reasons. First, complete coverage of the field: parenting, support, property, agreements and the urgent motions that hold everything together in the meantime. Second, the criminal-family crossover capability described above, which family-only firms simply do not have. Third, a practical, settlement-literate style that still prepares every file for the courtroom, you can see how we work in our results. Family law is lived one decision at a time; our job is to make each one deliberately.

When Orders Change: Variation and Review

No family order is truly final while children grow, incomes move and households re-form. The Divorce Act allows variation of support and parenting orders, but only through defined gates. Child support can be varied where a change would produce a different result under the Guidelines, which is exactly what the October 1, 2025 table update means for many existing orders. Spousal support requires a change in the condition, means, needs or other circumstances of either former spouse; a former spouse’s terminal illness or critical condition is expressly deemed such a change. Parenting orders require a change in the circumstances of the child, and a relocation is deemed to be one. The variation stage is also where retroactive child support claims surface, governed by the D.B.S. factors discussed above: the reason for delay, the payor’s conduct, the child’s circumstances and any hardship a retroactive award would cause.

Practical advice flows from the structure: keep disclosure current, document changes as they happen, and move promptly when circumstances shift, courts respond better to parents who adjusted in good faith than to those who let arrears or grievances pile up for years. Whether you are seeking a variation or resisting one, the analysis starts with the original order and the record behind it, which is why we build files with the long term in mind from day one.

Frequently Asked Questions. Family Law in Markham

This page provides general information about Ontario and Canadian family law, current to July 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create a lawyer-client relationship. Family law outcomes depend on the facts of each case, statutes and guidelines are amended, and support figures must always be confirmed against the current tables. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. For advice about your situation, contact Kazandji Law at 647-588-3234.