A. Himel

The mother applied for sole decision-making, primary care, child support, and a restraining order following a highly conflicted separation marked by the father's family violence, harassment, and erratic behaviour.

The father, who was self-represented, sought primary care and refused to pay child support unless granted equal parenting time or primary care.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making and primary care, finding the father's history of abuse and inability to co-parent made joint decision-making impossible.

The court ordered supervised parenting time for the father, imputed his income for retroactive and ongoing child support, and issued a permanent restraining order to protect the mother and child.

The applicant mother sought a 50% trust interest in a family home held solely in the respondent father's name, following their divorce, reconciliation, and subsequent separation.

The home was purchased using significant funds gifted by the maternal grandmother.

The father argued the funds were a gift to him as compensation for reconciling.

The court rejected the father's argument, finding the funds were gifted to the mother.

The court held that the father was unjustly enriched by the mother's financial and non-financial contributions during their joint family venture.

The mother was awarded a 50% constructive trust interest in the home, valued at $487,608, plus $88,000 in costs.

The father's request to extend the limitation period for an equalization claim was dismissed.

The child protection agency brought a motion regarding the care of two young children during an adjournment period.

The agency initially sought a supervision order placing the children with the father, but the court found that a supervision order would not adequately protect the children due to recent breaches of safety plans, domestic violence, and substance abuse concerns.

The court ordered that the children be placed in the temporary care and custody of the agency on a without prejudice basis.

The mother brought a motion to strike the father's pleadings and for a vesting order regarding the jointly held matrimonial home due to the father's egregious and persistent non-compliance with court orders.

The father, who resides in Iran, failed to pay over $700,000 in retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, mortgage expenses, and costs, and failed to provide financial disclosure.

The court applied the three-pronged test from Lamothe v. Ellis and struck the father's pleadings, allowing the mother to proceed by way of an uncontested trial.

The court also granted a vesting order transferring the father's 50% interest in the matrimonial home to the mother to secure the outstanding support and equalization obligations.

The parties separated after an 11-year marriage.

The wife sought an unequal division of net family property, alleging the husband dissipated assets and hid income from his pizza franchise.

The court relied on a jointly retained business valuator to determine the husband's income and the value of his business, dismissing the wife's claims of hidden assets.

The court ordered an equalization payment, dismissed the husband's claim for occupation rent, and dismissed the wife's claim for spousal support.

Child support was ordered based on the imputed incomes of both parties.

The applicant wife brought a motion to dismiss the respondent husband's Motion to Change due to his failure to pay over $800,000 in support arrears, a $100,000 precondition payment, and previous costs.

The husband had made no voluntary support payments since 2007 and failed to provide meaningful financial disclosure.

The court found the husband's non-compliance to be extensive, persistent, and willful.

The court ordered that the husband's pleadings be struck in 61 days unless he pays the $100,000 precondition, outstanding costs, and current costs of $17,000, and provides the required financial disclosure.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for his failure to comply with previous court orders regarding spousal support, child support, and disclosure.

The respondent admitted to withholding support but justified it by claiming the applicant owed him costs from a previous order.

The court found the respondent's non-compliance to be flagrant, willful, and calculated, noting his lavish lifestyle and unilateral withholding of support.

Instead of immediately striking the pleadings, the court granted the applicant's alternate relief, ordering the respondent to pay $87,403.16 in arrears by a specified date, failing which the applicant could move to strike his pleadings.

The court also made orders regarding the sale of a yacht, post-secondary expenses, and awarded substantial recovery costs to the applicant.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a separation agreement, seeking to relocate with the parties' youngest child to Montreal and to impute income to the respondent father for child support purposes.

The court found a material change in circumstances had occurred when the older children ceased contact with the father and he stopped paying his share of section 7 expenses.

The court permitted the relocation, finding it in the child's best interests as the mother required family support to care for the child's significant medical needs.

The court imputed the father's income at $80,000 due to intentional under-employment and ordered him to pay ongoing child support, section 7 expenses, and arrears.

The parties separated after a 27-year marriage characterized by traditional roles, with the wife acting as a homemaker and the husband as the sole financial provider.

Following a trial, the court granted a divorce and resolved outstanding property and spousal support claims.

The court ordered the equalization of net family property, the division of the husband's pension at source, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court imputed income to both parties and awarded the wife a lump sum spousal support payment of $29,500 to be paid from the husband's share of the net proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant father brought a motion to expand his parenting time with his three children from supervised access to unsupervised and overnight parenting time.

The respondent mother opposed, citing historical allegations of family violence and the father's criminal charges, which were resolved by a peace bond.

The court found that supervised access had been inappropriately used as a long-term remedy and that the mother's refusal to consent to a reasonable schedule was not protective gatekeeping but rather an inappropriate delay of normalized parenting time.

The court ordered a step-up parenting plan transitioning to unsupervised overnight parenting time and awarded costs to the father.

The applicant mother brought a motion to relocate with the parties' two children from Richmond Hill to St. Catharines.

The parties had a shared parenting arrangement.

The mother unilaterally moved to St. Catharines during the COVID-19 pandemic when schools were virtual.

The court applied the relocation provisions of the Divorce Act and found that the mother failed to meet her burden of proving the move was in the children's best interests, noting the significant impact the distance would have on the children and the father's parenting time.

The motion was dismissed, and the mother was ordered to return to within a 30-minute commute of the father's residence to maintain the shared parenting schedule.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that a 4.5-year-old child with autism spectrum disorder be placed in extended society care, with reduced access for the parents.

The parents opposed the motion, seeking to have the child placed in their care or to adjourn for updated parenting capacity assessments.

The court applied the test for summary judgment in child protection proceedings and found that there were genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the father's parenting plan and both parents' access.

The court noted that the existing parenting capacity assessments were outdated and that the COVID-19 pandemic had impacted the parents' ability to progress.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed and the matter was ordered to proceed to trial.

Following a re-hearing of a family law trial, the court determined the issue of costs.

The self-represented respondent was substantially successful on the property issues and somewhat successful on support issues.

The court found the applicant acted in bad faith by adopting a 'catch-me-if-you-can' approach to financial disclosure and pursuing meritless trust claims.

The respondent was awarded costs of $65,000, with his time as a self-represented litigant valued at $100 per hour.

The applicant father brought a 14B motion to re-open a costs decision, arguing his former counsel failed to include certain settlement offers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the omitted offers would not have altered the costs determination.

Noting the father's child support arrears and the excessive litigation history, the court awarded full indemnity costs to the respondent mother and ordered that the father may not seek further relief until he complies with all support and costs orders.

Following the vacating of the parties' motions for violating page limitations, the applicant requested an urgent teleconference regarding his spousal support motion.

The court expressed frustration with the parties' litigious conduct and the broader culture of unreasonableness and incivility in family court.

The court scheduled the applicant's spousal support motion and directed the respondent to file a 14B motion for leave to proceed with her motion.

The parties separated after a 16-year marriage.

The wife sought a resulting trust interest or unequal division of the husband's investment portfolio, which had grown significantly post-separation.

The court dismissed the trust and unequal division claims, finding the equalization of net family property regime applied.

Both parties were found to be intentionally under-employed, and incomes were imputed to both for support purposes.

The husband was ordered to pay an equalization payment, retroactive child support, and retroactive and ongoing spousal support.

The mother brought a motion to change a shared parenting order to sole custody and primary residence, which was ultimately resolved on consent after significant litigation.

The mother sought full recovery costs of $105,842.66, arguing the father's unreasonable behaviour drove up costs.

The father argued each party should bear their own costs as the matter settled on consent.

The court found the mother was the successful party and the father's entrenched position was unreasonable, but held the mother's claimed costs were disproportionate.

The court awarded the mother costs of $35,000.

The Children and Family Services for York Region brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order finding two children in need of protection and placing them in extended society care with no access to the parents.

The parents opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children or, alternatively, access.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the parents' history of unaddressed mental health issues, lack of parenting skills, and failure to work with the Society.

The court granted the summary judgment, finding the children in need of protection and ordering extended society care with no access to the parents, but allowing sibling access.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion requesting the respondent father submit to drug testing and that his access be suspended pending a negative result, citing erratic behaviour and allegations of cocaine use.

The father denied the allegations and provided a rapid drug screen, which the mother argued was insufficient.

The court ordered the father to undergo a panel urine and hair follicle test through a certified facility to ensure reliability.

The court also ordered that the father's access continue but be strictly supervised pending negative test results, finding the concerns about drug use constituted a material change in circumstances.