Alexandra Abramian

The appellants filed notices of appeal in the Divisional Court from a Family Court order that granted sole decision-making responsibility, child support, and a $452,000 equalization payment, and declared a fraudulent conveyance.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court held that under section 19 of the Courts of Justice Act, it lacked jurisdiction because the equalization payment exceeded $50,000 and the order was made under both the federal Divorce Act and the provincial Family Law Act.

The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to the appellants proceeding in the Court of Appeal.

Following a 16-day trial involving parenting, equalization, and fraudulent conveyance claims, the applicant wife sought costs of over $305,000.

The court found the wife was largely successful, particularly on the dominant issues of equalization and fraudulent conveyance against the husband and one respondent.

The court awarded the wife $223,000 in costs, apportioned among the issues.

Additionally, the court ordered two self-represented respondents to pay $500 each for relying on AI-generated fake case law in their submissions, noting their failure to verify the authorities or take responsibility when the issue was raised.

Following a 16-day trial involving parenting, equalization, and fraudulent conveyance claims, the applicant wife sought costs of over $305,000.

The court found the wife was largely successful, particularly on the dominant issues of equalization and fraudulent conveyance against the husband and one respondent.

The court awarded the wife $223,000 in costs, apportioned among the issues.

Additionally, the court ordered two self-represented respondents to pay $500 each for relying on AI-generated fake case law in their submissions, noting their failure to verify the authorities or take responsibility when the issue was raised.

A complex family law trial involving equalization of net family property, child and spousal support, and fraudulent conveyance claims arising from the breakdown of a 17-year marriage.

The applicant wife sought equalization of property and support for three children.

The respondent husband, who had engaged in deceptive financial transactions including placing a mortgage on the matrimonial home without the wife's knowledge and selling it to a third party, was found to have fraudulently conveyed the property.

The court imputed income to the husband due to inadequate disclosure and awarded the wife an equalization payment, child support arrears, and section 7 expense contributions.

The court also addressed overlapping claims by multiple respondents and dismissed claims lacking evidentiary foundation.

The applicant sought equalization following a brief marriage, while the respondent relied on a 2012 document signed in Israel to argue that equalization had been contracted out of under the Family Law Act.

The court held that the document did not clearly oust equalization, was not properly witnessed as required by s. 55(1), and in any event should be set aside under s. 56(4) because the applicant did not understand its nature or consequences in the context in which it was created.

The court therefore determined the equalization amount rather than remitting the issue, deducting disposition costs from the matrimonial home and fixing the total owing at $132,050.85 after post-separation adjustments.

The respondent's spousal support claim was dismissed for lack of evidentiary foundation and entitlement.

The parties brought a consent motion in an appeal from the Ontario Court of Justice, seeking to set aside the lower court's order and implement a new settlement.

The Superior Court dismissed the motion, holding that it would not exercise its appellate jurisdiction to set aside an order on consent without a showing of reversible error.

The court emphasized that any settlement on the merits of the original proceeding should be implemented in the court where that proceeding is being carried, after which the appeal could be dismissed.

The father (A.N.) brought a long motion seeking to retrospectively vary a temporary order from November 21, 2022, which required him to pay $5,134.24 per month for matrimonial home expenses and the mother's car payments, to $1,000.00 per month, citing health reasons and inability to work.

The mother (D.N.) opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding he failed to satisfy the four-part test to vary a temporary order on an interim basis, specifically lacking "clean hands" a strong prima facie case, urgency, or hardship.

The court noted significant credibility issues with the father's claims of inability to pay and the mother's alleged hidden income, concluding these issues require a full trial.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for failure to comply with previous court orders regarding financial disclosure and support payments, and to add third parties to the proceeding.

The respondent argued that his mental health challenges prevented him from complying with the orders.

The court found the respondent's non-compliance to be willful, noting inconsistencies between his claimed incapacity and his actions, such as international travel.

However, as striking pleadings is a remedy of last resort, the court declined to strike the pleadings at this time, giving the respondent one final 30-day opportunity to comply.

The motion to add parties was adjourned.

The court determined the final damages and costs following a trial decision that awarded the applicant a 35% interest in the family home and other properties owned by the respondent.

The court calculated the net equity of the properties, finding the respondent owed the applicant $367,198.21.

The court also awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $46,383.87, which included a 20% reduction due to delays and adjournments caused by the applicant's failure to properly plead a joint family venture until late in the proceedings.

Following the release of reasons for judgment in a family law application, the respondent brought a motion under Rule 25(19) seeking to dismiss the application or order a new trial due to factual errors in the judgment.

The court acknowledged a minor factual error regarding the source of a down payment but found it did not alter the conclusion that there was a joint family venture and unjust enrichment.

The court also clarified the calculation of the applicant's 35% interest in the accumulated properties.

The respondent's motion was dismissed, as the remaining issues were either previously addressed or relied on new evidence that could have been adduced at trial.

In a family law proceeding, the court ordered both the applicant and the respondent to provide updated financial disclosure regarding their respective properties.

The parties were directed to exchange mortgage and line of credit statements, MPAC assessments, and details of any rental income received since December 2017.

Further submissions on the net equity of the properties were scheduled to follow the disclosure.

The applicant and respondent, unmarried cohabitants for 12 years, separated and sought division of accumulated real estate.

The applicant claimed a 50% interest in properties registered to the respondent based on unjust enrichment and joint family venture.

The court found the applicant made a modest financial contribution to the family home and contributed to the maintenance of investment properties and the family home, allowing the respondent to earn substantial income.

The court concluded the criteria for unjust enrichment and joint family venture were met and awarded the applicant a 35% interest in the family home and other properties, less the equity in a condominium owned by the applicant.

The applicant sought to amend her pleading to explicitly include a claim based on a joint family venture, which was not originally pleaded but was relied upon during the trial.

The respondent opposed the motion.

The court granted the amendment, finding that the respondent was aware of the joint family venture theory of the case throughout the proceedings, and that no limitation period issue existed for the unjust enrichment claim.

The court noted that the applicant's counsel's delay in seeking the amendment would be considered in the determination of costs.

The applicant wife sought temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, registered in the husband's sole name, after the husband was removed due to criminal charges and the husband's mother created a toxic living environment.

The husband's mother, a co-respondent, sought to vacate the exclusive possession order, claiming a beneficial interest and possessory rights to the home.

The court found the wife's evidence credible regarding the untenable living conditions and the children's distress.

The court determined that the husband's mother had no statutory right to possession under the Family Law Act and failed to establish a prima facie case for a constructive or resulting trust interest that would grant her possessory rights.

Considering the best interests of the children and the wife's lack of alternative accommodation, the court granted the wife temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

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.

The respondent mother brought a second urgent motion alleging that the applicant father was actively undermining a previous court order regarding the child's daycare arrangements and had threatened the daycare operators.

The court granted the mother's requested relief, emphasizing the seriousness of non-compliance with court orders and warning the father about potential contempt findings and costs.

The father was given an opportunity to file an affidavit in response to the allegations.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion regarding daycare arrangements for the parties' four-and-a-half-year-old child, seeking to ensure the child's continued attendance at a subsidized daycare (KI) to prevent the loss of subsidy and placement.

The applicant father opposed, proposing an alternative daycare.

The court found the daycare issue urgent due to the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and noted the father's failure to respond to the motion.

The court granted the mother's requested relief, ordering the child to return to KI, and awarded costs to the mother due to the father's non-response and lack of acceptable explanation.

This endorsement addresses two urgent motions during the COVID-19 pandemic: one brought by the York Regional Police to remove police enforcement clauses from existing parenting orders, and another by the Respondent seeking urgent payment of a previously ordered costs award.

The court granted the police motion, finding that repeated police enforcement was not a sustainable solution for chronic non-compliance in high-conflict custody cases and posed risks to the children, especially during the pandemic.

The court dismissed the Respondent's urgent motion for costs, determining it did not meet the criteria for an emergency motion during the judicial suspension, as a costs order already existed.

The applicant father sought costs of $128,917.14 on a full recovery basis following the dismissal of the respondent mother's motion to change custody.

The applicant relied on an offer to settle that matched the trial outcome on custody but differed on financial issues, which were settled prior to the end of trial.

The court held that because the offer was not severable, the applicant was not presumptively entitled to full recovery costs under Rule 18(14).

Taking into account the respondent's limited financial means and the risk of hardship affecting her ability to care for the children, the court awarded partial recovery costs of $65,000, payable at $650 per month.

The mother brought a motion to change a final consent order, seeking sole custody of the parties' two children who have autism spectrum disorder.

The court found that the father's unilateral decision to move residences and change the children's schools constituted a material change in circumstances.

However, applying the best interests of the child test, the court dismissed the mother's motion for sole custody, finding the father offered greater stability and was more likely to maximize contact.

The court ordered shared care on consent but maintained the father's sole decision-making authority.