Adriana Chimirel

In this family law trial, the mother sought to relocate with the children to Toronto and requested sole decision-making responsibility.

The father opposed the move and sought joint decision-making and a shared parenting arrangement.

The court found that the father had engaged in serious family violence, including coercive control and unauthorized surveillance, while the mother had engaged in mild, situational violence.

Due to the history of family violence and the father's inability to co-parent collaboratively, the court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility.

The court also found the relocation to Toronto was in the children's best interests due to the mother's role as primary caregiver and her commute to work, and ordered a parenting schedule and a restraining order against the father.

During a family law trial involving mobility and allegations of family violence, the applicant father sought to introduce evidence regarding a hidden bedroom camera.

He had previously refused to answer questions about the camera during pre-trial questioning, citing an active criminal proceeding for voyeurism.

The respondent mother objected to the evidence as trial by ambush.

The court compared the Family Law Rules with the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting that Family Law Rule 20(20) creates a presumption of admissibility unless harm is demonstrated.

Finding that the mother would suffer prejudice but not sufficient harm to exclude the evidence, the court admitted the testimony.

However, the court ordered the father to pay $2,500 in costs and a $2,500 fine for his strategic failure to correct his refusal prior to trial.

The respondent father moved for partition and sale of a jointly owned home and occupation rent.

The applicant mother opposed, claiming unjust enrichment due to her payment of carrying costs and renovations, arguing the sale should await trial for a proprietary remedy.

The court ordered the sale of the home, finding no malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct by the father.

It dismissed the mother's unjust enrichment claim regarding the increased value of the home, stating that unilateral improvements do not create an obligation for the other party to forgo their share of appreciation.

The court awarded the father occupation rent from October 2020 (when he initiated legal steps for sale) and ordered the father to contribute to post-separation carrying costs and agreed renovation expenses.

This endorsement addresses the jurisdiction of a judge in a civil settlement conference to order the transfer of a file from the civil division to the family division of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The applicant had initiated a civil application for partition and sale of a jointly owned home, despite unresolved family law issues.

The respondent sought to transfer the matter to family court.

The court found that the application was in the wrong forum, constituting "forum shopping" and splitting issues.

Citing Rules of Civil Procedure 50.13 and relevant case law, the judge confirmed the power to make procedural orders, including transfers, at a case conference without a formal motion, provided informal notice is given.

The matter was transferred to the family division, and a family settlement conference was ordered.

The applicant's counsel's aggressive objection and the applicant's inadequate attendance were noted.

The applicant brought a motion for financial disclosure, temporary spousal support, and costs in a family law proceeding.

The court dismissed the applicant's requests for formal pension and asset valuations, finding the respondent's existing disclosure sufficient, but ordered the respondent to provide an Equifax report.

The court awarded temporary spousal support of $387 per month, adopting the mid-range amount based on the parties' 2019 incomes.

No costs were awarded due to divided success and the respondent's unreasonable conduct regarding disclosure.