Andrew Feldstein

The applicant sought costs for three motions in a family law proceeding: a non-depletion/Mareva motion, a disclosure motion, and a motion to vary support that the respondent abandoned.

The respondent failed to provide comparative bills of costs or make reasonable offers to settle.

The court awarded the applicant $48,000 in costs.

A third-party lawyer who was the target of the disclosure motion was also awarded $10,000 in costs, payable by the respondent.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce various terms of a domestic contract regarding child support, section 7 expenses, and a previous costs award.

The respondent cross-moved for related relief.

The court ordered the added party to pay the outstanding costs award of $25,800.

The court also directed the parties to calculate the cost of living adjustment for child support and ordered the respondent to pay fixed arrears for nanny, extracurricular, and therapy expenses.

Finally, the court ordered the parties to negotiate adequate life insurance security and exchange annual proof of RESP contributions.

The parties brought competing motions in a family law proceeding.

The respondent husband sought summary judgment declaring the valuation date as June 30, 2008, while the applicant wife claimed the date was December 20, 2019.

The court dismissed the husband's motion, finding his evidence disingenuous and setting the valuation date at December 20, 2019.

The court granted the wife's motion for interim spousal support, imputing an income of $838,000 to the husband and ordering him to pay $25,000 per month.

The court also granted the wife leave to question the family's long-time lawyer as a non-party, but dismissed her request for interim disbursements without prejudice.

The moving party (father) brought a motion to set aside an uncontested trial judgment that ordered him to pay significant retroactive and ongoing child support based on imputed income.

The moving party had failed to attend the first day of trial because he chose to attend his first day of a new job, relying on incorrect advice from a paralegal that an agent could secure an adjournment.

The court found this was a satisfactory reason under Rule 25(19)(e) of the Family Law Rules.

Applying the principles for self-represented litigants and the primary objective of the rules, the court set aside the judgment in its entirety to allow the issues of income and retroactive support to be determined on their merits.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary a temporary custody and access order seeking expanded parenting time and removal of restrictions on the children’s contact with paternal grandparents.

He relied on recent child protection agency letters indicating that abuse allegations made by each parent had not been verified.

The respondent opposed the variation and sought an adjournment pending completion of an ongoing investigation by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer under s. 112 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court held that although the agency letters were relevant, it was preferable to maintain stability for the children and await the investigator’s imminent report before altering the existing temporary arrangement.

The application was adjourned, but the order was varied to permit the father to supervise the grandparents’ access to the children.