Amit S. Dror

The Applicant sought an adjournment of a Trial Scheduling Conference (TSC) and leave for a second Settlement Conference, citing outstanding disclosure and the need for expert reports.

The Respondent opposed, seeking dismissal of the Applicant's requests, costs, and orders regarding travel consent and in-person questioning.

The court dismissed both the Applicant's and Respondent's 14B motions, emphasizing the parties' history of non-compliance with court orders and the Family Law Rules.

The TSC was ordered to proceed as scheduled, and no costs were awarded due to both parties' conduct.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's order finding him in contempt for failing to sign an assessor's retainer, prohibiting him from filing further motions without leave, granting the respondent mother sole decision-making responsibility, and delegating treatment authority for their child.

The Court of Appeal upheld the contempt finding and the grant of sole decision-making authority, finding the father's attempts to modify the retainer were not minor and that the mother's authority was justified by the father's non-compliance.

However, the court found the prohibition on filing further motions without leave was an overreach, as the father was not a vexatious litigant and such a term was not supported by the record, especially given potential future enforcement issues regarding parenting time.

The appeal was allowed in part.

In a family law proceeding involving claims for child support and a constructive trust, both parties brought motions to compel answers to undertakings, under advisements, and refusals from their respective Questionings.

The court applied the principles of relevance and proportionality under the Family Law Rules to determine which questions must be answered.

The court ordered the applicant to provide various financial documents, including business ledgers subject to a non-disclosure agreement, and ordered the respondent to disclose legal and accounting fees, while dismissing requests for irrelevant banking and business interference information.

The applicant father sought primary care and sole decision-making for his 11-year-old daughter following the mother's death from brain cancer.

The maternal grandparents, with whom the child had primarily resided for most of her life, opposed this, seeking to maintain the status quo.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" principle under the Divorce Act, rejected the father's claim of a "right of joint custodial survivorship" and found that the child's need for stability and continuity favored remaining in the grandparents' primary care.

The court granted interim primary care and final decision-making to the grandparents, while establishing a parenting schedule for the father and ordering mediation.

The Respondent Mother sought an interim order to relocate with the child, Zahida, to Sudbury for a unique career opportunity.

The Applicant Father opposed the relocation and brought a cross-motion to prohibit it, arguing it would negatively impact his relationship with the child and that the Mother's employment reasons were not compelling.

The court granted the Mother's relocation motion, finding her reasons compelling and that the move was in the child's best interests, given the child's young age and the Mother's role as primary caregiver.

The Father's cross-motion was dismissed.

The court also addressed the onus of proof in relocation cases under the Divorce Act and ordered continued supervised parenting time for the Father.

The parties separated after eight years of marriage and have one child with Type 1 diabetes.

Both parties brought motions for interim relief regarding parenting, support, and the matrimonial home.

The court ordered joint decision-making and a graduated parenting schedule leading to equal time.

For support purposes, the court imputed an income of $25,000 to the applicant and determined the respondent's income at $1,192,666 based on a three-year average, excluding certain non-recurring amounts.

The court ordered interim child and spousal support, the sale of the matrimonial home, and an advance of $120,000 to the applicant for interim disbursements.

This case involved a bifurcated, high-conflict six-day trial concerning the custody and access of three children.

The applicant mother and respondent father each claimed custody, with the children having resided with the mother since separation in 2012.

The primary dispute revolved around the re-establishment of the children's relationship with the father, with the mother proposing preconditions for reunification therapy (e.g., father undertaking anger management) and the father advocating for unconditional reunification therapy, aligning with the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court ordered reunification therapy for the two younger children, rejecting the mother's preconditions and establishing a detailed framework for the therapy process, including therapist selection, shared payment, and the therapist's authority over access timelines.

The children were to continue residing with the mother, and no immediate access order was made, pending the therapist's recommendations.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for enforcement of a separation agreement, damages, and relief related to foreign divorce proceedings, as well as a motion to declare the plaintiff a vexatious litigant.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion regarding the property transfer, finding genuine issues for trial concerning the alleged breach and limitation periods.

However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims related to the Ukrainian divorce proceedings, as they fell outside Ontario's jurisdiction and disclosed no known cause of action.

The motion to declare the plaintiff a vexatious litigant was also dismissed.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judgment granting the respondent father overnight access to their six-year-old child.

The trial judge had adopted the parenting plan proposed by a court-appointed assessor, despite the mother's allegations of domestic violence and her reliance on critique evidence from another expert.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly considered the best interests of the child under the Children's Law Reform Act, appropriately weighed the expert evidence, and did not err by declining to make a formal 'custody' order or by ordering the parties to engage a mediator/arbitrator based on prior consent.

The parties engaged in mediation-arbitration for family law matters.

The arbitrator awarded retroactive child support after finding the respondent misrepresented his income.

The appeal judge overturned the award, finding the arbitrator erred by not conducting a D.B.S. analysis.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding the appeal judge applied the wrong test for sufficiency of reasons and erred by disallowing the award without performing the analysis or remitting it.

The matter was referred back to the arbitrator to determine if D.B.S. applies.

The court also refused to hear the respondent's submissions due to his deliberate misconduct in failing to pay costs, child support, and disclose tax returns.