Darlene P. Madott's involvement in cases includes:

• In an Application for variation of child support and financial disclosure, where the parties had a separation agreement that provided for non-variable child support, special expenses, and waiver of future financial disclosure, the father was ordered to provide financial disclosure as mandated by the Child Support Guidelines and the information was ordered sealed for 12 months. (Quinn v. Keiper).

• Also a variation case where the issue was whether a Partial Interim Separation Agreement that provided for child-support binds the determination of future support. The Court endorsed the concept that child support is the right of the child and the Agreement does not inhibit future determination. (Nebel v. Robertson)

• An Application for variation of spousal support based on retirement, material change in circumstances and pensions and the problem of double recovery (looking to the pension income where the pension was already equalized as part of the property settlement), the Court reduced spousal support, but did allow some "double-dipping" because of the extreme circumstances of the former wife. (Ambler v. Ambler)

• A mobility case, where a minimal access father successfully resisted the move of his children with their mother to North Bay, in a legal climate where courts tend to permit moves of factual custodial mothers. (Tumino v. Tumino)

• The mother’s child support obligation was set-off against spousal support and, as the father’s offers exceeded court awarded support, the wife was ordered to pay large interim costs award to the husband. (Giovenazzo v. Giovenazzo)

• An international child abduction case raising constitutional and conflict-of-laws issues where immigration legislation conflicts with the Children’s Law Reform Act concept of returning abducted children to the home jurisdiction. (Maharaj v. Maharaj)

• Acted for the husband in a case where the wife, using Cheng argument (see below), sought to add the husband’s father and company to the proceedings: the Court denied the wife’s request to add the husband’s father and his company as parties but granted the order for production of documents from non-parties. (Noik v. Noik)

• In an early Guideline case, pre-Contino, where the father sought to vary child support in a separation agreement on the basis that he parented more than 40% of the time, the Court refused to vary child support pursuant to s. 9 of the Child Support Guidelines, unconvinced of the factual 40% issue. (Piatkowski v. Piatkowski)

• A Trinidad husband obtained a stay of Ontario proceedings based on Trinidad being the more substantial jurisdiction. The parties were married and lived in Trinidad and Tobago until 1980. In order to have the children educated in Canada, the mother moved with the children to Ontario, where she lived for most of a decade. Although the parties became landed immigrants, their social ties and roots remained in Trinidad and their summers and school breaks were spent in the Carribean. When the marriage broke down, the father initiated divorce proceedings in Trinidad and the mother initiated proceedings in Ontario. The Court found Trinidad was the appropriate forum for the proceedings, given the family's ties to Trinidad and the shared principles between the two jurisdictions. Upheld on appeal. (Nicholas v. Nicholas)

• The appellant mother brought a motion to amend her statement of claim to proceed against her father-in-law and mother-in-law to claim support for herself and her children on a variety of grounds. The claim for child support was based upon the provisions of the Family Law Act, and the assertion that the grandparents had "demonstrated a settled intention" to treat the children as children of their family, and contract theory that the grandparents had promised the wife that they would take care of her and her children if she married their son. The Court granted the appeal, and the mother was given ten days to amend her statement of claim. (Cheng v. Cheng)