Aaron Myer Franks

This endorsement addresses costs arising from a motion for temporary spousal support where the Applicant was largely successful.

The Applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the Respondent sought full recovery costs, arguing the Applicant's unreasonable conduct in bringing the motion on short notice should disentitle her to costs.

The court found the Applicant's conduct unreasonable, partly due to her fragile medical condition, but also noted the Respondent's prior failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court determined that the Applicant's unreasonable conduct warranted a reduction in her costs award, but not a denial, and dismissed the Respondent's claim for costs, finding that many of his incurred costs related to overdue financial disclosure.

The Applicant was awarded approximately 50% of her substantial indemnity costs.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion to change spousal support.

The parties had been married for 21 years and reached a consent order in 2012 providing for $12,000 per month in spousal support plus 27% of incentive employment income.

The motion judge dismissed the motion to change, finding that while the respondent's income had increased, no additional compensatory support was warranted.

The appellant argued the motion judge misunderstood the principles of compensatory support under Moge v. Moge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no legal error, error in principle, or significant misapprehension of evidence.

Appeal from trial judgment in matrimonial proceedings concerning ownership of property.

The trial judge found that the appellant's 50% interest in Knapton Farms Ltd. (a corporation holding farm property) and 100% interest in lot 8 (adjoining land) were beneficially owned by the respondent through resulting trust.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the trial judge correctly applied resulting trust principles to the Knapton shares but erred regarding lot 8.

The court held that the initial 1994 transfer of lot 8 to the parties as joint owners created a presumption of joint beneficial ownership under the Family Law Act, which the respondent failed to rebut.

However, the court upheld the resulting trust finding regarding the 1996 transfer of the respondent's half-interest to the appellant.

The court also corrected the valuation of farm real estate and addressed equalization, occupation rent, and pre-judgment interest issues.

On appeal from a trial decision in a family law matter involving equalization, spousal support, and costs following a 27-year marriage.

The trial judge had ordered an equalization payment, spousal support at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, and full indemnity costs against the wife.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the equalization payment but found errors in the spousal support calculation and costs award, returning both issues to the trial judge for reconsideration.

On the second appeal, the Court of Appeal corrected the wife's income calculation to account for tax implications and eliminated double-counting, resulting in a higher spousal support award.

The costs award was upheld as reasonable given the wife's conduct.

The plaintiff, Flirty Girl Fitness Inc. (FGF), brought a summary judgment motion alleging breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, conversion, and professional negligence against the defendants, including a co-founder sister, former corporate lawyers, and a new fitness company.

FGF claimed damages of $180,440.15 plus punitive damages.

The defendants sought summary judgment to dismiss all claims.

The court found that the co-founder sister, Krista Knee, acted in FGF's best interests to salvage the business by transferring assets to Hottie Body Boutique Inc. (HBB), which assumed FGF's significant debts and prepaid customer contracts.

The transaction was deemed fair and beneficial to FGF, despite some corporate governance irregularities and a minor breach of fiduciary duty by the sisters for not fully disclosing future personal ownership plans to passive shareholders, which caused no damage to FGF.

The court also found no breach of fiduciary duty or professional negligence by the corporate lawyer, David Epstein.

Consequently, the court dismissed FGF's action in its entirety, concluding there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The applicant wife sought to set aside a marriage contract and requested interim spousal support of $50,000 per month, alleging duress, undue influence, unconscionability, and inadequate financial disclosure.

The respondent husband opposed the motion, arguing the contract was valid and that the applicant's refusal to produce her former counsel's file warranted an adverse inference.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding no serious issue to be tried regarding the contract's validity under the two-stage Miglin test.

The court upheld the contractual spousal support of $12,000 per month and ordered the applicant to pay costs to the respondent.

The deceased was subject to court orders requiring him to pay spousal and child support and to maintain his wife as the irrevocable beneficiary of his life insurance policy.

After separation, the deceased entered into a relationship with another woman whose child was born three months after his death.

The deceased left an insolvent estate.

The other woman brought an application for dependants' relief seeking to claw back the life insurance proceeds into the estate under section 72(1)(f) of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The wife sought a declaration that the policy did not form part of the estate or that she was a creditor whose rights were protected under section 72(7) of the Act.

The trial judge and Divisional Court held the policy formed part of the estate.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that section 72(7) excludes from the claw back the amount of proceeds required to satisfy the deceased's court-ordered spousal and child support obligations where the support recipient was designated as the irrevocable beneficiary.

Maria Anna Koundouros brought a motion to strike the claim of her former mother-in-law, Stavroulla Koundouros, who sought repayment of $1,598,000 advanced to Maria and her son during their marriage.

Maria argued that a promissory note for the funds was solely between Stavroulla and her son, Nicolaos, and therefore no cause of action existed against her.

The court dismissed Maria's motion, finding that Stavroulla's claim, which included allegations of unjust enrichment and trust claims based on joint benefit and Maria's access to funds, disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The court emphasized that the Family Law Rules, not the Rules of Civil Procedure, primarily govern such family disputes and that the promissory note was not dispositive at this early stage.

The wife and her boyfriend brought a motion to remove the husband's lawyer due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The boyfriend had a brief consultation with the lawyer for his own matrimonial matter, and the husband's answer in the current litigation alleged an affair between the wife and boyfriend and extravagant spending.

The moving parties claimed the lawyer breached duties of confidence, loyalty, and candour, and faced a potential conflict in cross-examining the boyfriend as a witness.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no confidential information was disclosed, the relationship between the wife and boyfriend was not confidential, and the two matrimonial litigations were not sufficiently related to create a presumption of conflict.

The court also found no breach of a limited duty of loyalty or candour, and no impediment to cross-examination.

Following competing family law motions addressing custody, access, assessment, and child support, the court determined the issue of costs.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court considered success, proportionality, the parties’ conduct, and the limited financial means of the litigants.

The respondent had brought an earlier motion that was found not urgent and obtained no relief, entitling the applicant to costs of that motion.

For the later motions, the court found divided success between the parties and ordered each to bear their own costs.

The respondent husband moved to stay a divorce proceeding and set aside an ex parte Mareva injunction on the basis that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction under s. 3(1) of the Divorce Act.

The court found that the applicant spouse had not been ordinarily resident in Ontario for the required one‑year period preceding the application and had instead been living with the family in China.

The court also concluded there was no real and substantial connection to Ontario sufficient to ground corollary relief under the Family Law Act.

In related proceedings concerning the parties’ children, the court declined to order their return to China despite concerns regarding their removal, emphasizing the need for a full evidentiary record before determining custody issues.

Following the dismissal of a family law motion seeking certificates of pending litigation over properties and the addition of the respondent’s parents as parties, the court determined the appropriate costs awards.

The court found the motion against the parents to have been recklessly pursued because the issues had already been litigated and no material change justified revisiting them.

Substantial costs were awarded to the parents due to their complete success and the unreasonable conduct of the moving party.

The respondent spouse, who largely took no position on the motion, received a reduced costs award reflecting limited participation and proportionality principles.