Andrea Himel

The applicant wife brought a motion for temporary spousal support, retroactive lump sum support, and disclosure from the respondent husband.

The husband denied entitlement, claiming low income and that significant assets belonged to his father.

The court imputed the husband's annual income at $550,000 due to contradictory statements and non-disclosure, finding the wife entitled to support.

The court ordered the husband to pay $20,000 per month in spousal support, retroactive to March 1, 2023, and to provide outstanding financial disclosure within 30 days, failing which his pleadings could be struck.

The wife's request for the husband to renew the mortgage and pay insurance on the matrimonial home was denied.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the wife due to the husband's unreasonable conduct.

The applicant wife sought summary judgment to enforce a global financial settlement negotiated at a settlement conference.

The respondent husband argued the agreement was not binding, conditional on independent legal advice (ILA), and unconscionable.

The court found no binding settlement, concluding that the negotiated terms were conditional upon the husband obtaining ILA and executing a formal contract.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the matter was directed to trial.

This is a case management ruling in a family law matter where the court converted a long motion and cross-motion into a case management attendance due to excessive materials and the need for directions.

The respondent husband was found to be non-compliant with previous court orders, including failing to provide a reliable financial statement, not disclosing a significant inheritance, and dissipating funds intended for spousal support.

The court appointed an expert to value the husband's corporate interests and income and to trace funds.

The court ordered the husband to provide security in the amount of $650,000 for the equalization payment, citing his concerning conduct and the potential unenforceability of future orders.

The husband's motion for interim disbursements was dismissed.

The ruling also set strict directions for future motions and a timeline for further proceedings, including a third-party disclosure motion and a motion to strike the husband's pleadings.

The applicant mother sought costs on a full recovery basis after successfully obtaining a declaratory order for the return of her child, who had been wrongfully retained by the respondent father in Mexico.

The father failed to participate in the proceedings, and the child was ultimately returned following an order from the Mexican court.

The court found the father's conduct amounted to bad faith, justifying an award of full recovery costs.

While the requested legal fees were reduced by 10% for proportionality, the mother was also awarded full recovery of her travel expenses incurred in securing the child's return.

The Children and Family Services for York Region brought a Protection Application and urgent motion, leading to a Temporary Care and Custody Hearing for two children.

The Society sought to place the children with the father for six months, but the court declined, instead maintaining the children in the Society's care via a new order, which the parents consented to.

The judge criticized the Society's delay in commencing the Protection Application, highlighting the importance of timely judicial oversight and access to legal representation for parents.

The applicant sought the release of her 50% interest in the net proceeds from the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The respondent initially did not oppose this motion but attempted to bring an improper cross-motion for the release of his own share, which was rejected by the court filing office.

The court granted the applicant's motion, finding it unopposed and properly before the court, while dismissing the respondent's attempt to proceed with his non-compliant cross-motion.

The court also awarded costs to the applicant due to the respondent's unreasonable and obstructionist behaviour.

The respondent father brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant mother's claims for retroactive and ongoing child support and section 7 expenses.

The mother had commenced an application in Ontario seeking to vary a Michigan Consent Judgment of Divorce that included child support provisions.

The father argued that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction, asserting that the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act (ISOA) was the exclusive mechanism for varying a foreign support order from a reciprocating jurisdiction.

The court found that the child support provisions in the foreign divorce could not be varied or replaced by a provincial order in Ontario, as the case did not fall within the narrow exceptions to the general rule that ISOA is the proper route.

The court dismissed the mother's child support claims, concluding there was no genuine issue for trial regarding jurisdiction.

The applicant mother sought a declaratory order that the child, Vivian Wu, was wrongfully retained by the father in Mexico City since August 14, 2022, and an order for her immediate return to Ontario under the Hague Convention and the Children's Law Reform Act.

The father failed to participate in the proceedings despite notice.

The court found that Ontario was the child's habitual residence and declared the retention wrongful, ordering the child's forthwith return to Markham, Ontario.

The court also granted the mother's request for letters rogatory to ensure proper service on the father in Mexico.

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 applicant father sought an equal time parenting order for the parties' three children.

The respondent mother opposed overnight parenting time, citing concerns about the father's mental health and a history of family violence.

The court declined to order a week-on/week-off schedule, finding it not in the children's best interests given the lack of recent overnight time and the young age of one child.

Instead, the court ordered a step-up parenting schedule, delaying overnight time until both parties provided medical letters addressing mental health and substance use.

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 applicant father brought a motion to enforce a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dictated at the conclusion of a family mediation.

The respondent mother opposed, arguing there was no final agreement and that mediation communications were protected by settlement privilege.

The court applied the settlement privilege exception from Bouvier, allowing the communications to be reviewed to determine if an agreement existed.

However, the court found the MOU was unenforceable as it did not comply with s. 55(1) of the Family Law Act and there was no meeting of the minds, given the late hour of dictation and the mother's prompt objections.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the mother.

The applicant mother brought a motion to relocate with the parties' three children from Mt Albert to Orillia, approximately 100 kilometres away.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion for a parenting time schedule based on an Office of the Children's Lawyer report.

The court applied the relocation factors under section 16.92(1) of the Divorce Act, finding the move was in the children's best interests due to the mother's medical needs and support system in Orillia.

The relocation was permitted, and a modified parenting schedule was ordered to accommodate the distance.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion prohibiting the respondent mother from removing their one-year-old child from Ontario to Israel.

The mother argued the child was habitually resident in Israel and commenced proceedings there.

The court applied the hybrid approach to determine habitual residence and found that the child was habitually resident in Ontario, as the parties had demonstrated a settled intention to relocate to Canada.

The court assumed jurisdiction over the provincial family law claims but dismissed the Divorce Act claims as the parties had not resided in Canada for one year.

The mother was ordered to pay $15,000 in costs.

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 father sought an equal parenting time order for the three children, while the respondent mother sought primary care.

The parties continued to reside in the matrimonial home post-separation, leading to high conflict.

The court considered the best interests of the children under the Divorce Act, including factors like stability, relationships with parents, and the children's views.

The court ordered a temporary parenting schedule where the children would reside with the father on alternate weekends (Friday to Monday), every Wednesday overnight, and every Thursday (evening during school year, overnight during summer).

The court also ordered a privately funded Voice of the Child Report and mediation.

Costs were not awarded to either party due to their unreasonable behaviour and divided success.

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.