Andrew Pinto

In an uncontested trial following the striking of the respondent's pleadings, the applicant sought sole decision-making responsibility, parenting time orders, and child support for their three-year-old child.

The court found a history of family violence and that the respondent had minimal involvement in the child's life.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making responsibility, the right to travel without consent, and ordered the respondent to pay ongoing and retroactive child support based on an imputed annual income of $43,750.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for interim disbursements, the respondent sought costs of $41,598.46 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant proposed costs of $7,199 payable in the cause.

The court found the respondent's costs excessive, reduced the hours claimed, and determined that the respondent's offer to settle did not attract Rule 18 consequences.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable within 30 days.

The appellant father appealed a trial decision dismissing his Hague Convention application for the return of the parties' three children to Michigan and assuming jurisdiction under section 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The trial judge found that the father did not have custody rights at the time of removal and that returning the children to Michigan without their primary caregiver mother, who lacked immigration status to return, would expose them to a grave risk of harm from the abusive father.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the risk of harm or her decision not to defer to the Michigan court.

In supplementary reasons following an interim support motion, the court determined outstanding issues regarding section 7 expenses and costs.

The court found that a monthly nanny expense of $1,560 was a legitimate section 7 expense, ordering the respondent to pay his proportionate share based on an imputed income of $100,000.

The court declined to award costs to either party, noting divided success and that neither party's offer to settle was better than the outcome.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support against the respondent father, who is serving a life sentence in prison.

The parties disputed the respondent's income, with the applicant claiming it was $243,531 based on funds received during the relationship, and the respondent claiming it was $50,000 from prison work, rental properties, and sports betting.

The court rejected both figures, finding the respondent's disclosure unreliable but the applicant's lifestyle analysis excessive.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $100,000 and directed the parties to calculate support based on that amount, with spousal support at the mid-range of the SSAGs.

Following a decision dismissing the applicant's motion and granting the respondent's cross-motion, a dispute arose regarding the timeline for final submissions and the immediate release of trust funds.

The court held a case conference and ordered the immediate termination of child support, which had been found to have ended in 2018, and the immediate release of funds held in trust to the respondent.

The deadline for final submissions on the remaining issues was extended.

The applicant wife and respondent husband brought cross-motions for the release of funds held in trust from the sale of their jointly owned matrimonial home and commercial property.

The applicant sought $1.5 million and an order that the balance remain in trust pending final equalization, while the respondent sought an equal distribution of the funds.

The court ordered $1.5 million released to the applicant, $1.25 million held in trust to secure potential equalization payments, and the balance released to the respondent.

The court also ordered the respondent to produce an original promissory note allegedly evidencing a $500,000 loan from his late father.

The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce child and spousal support arrears and section 7 expenses, while the respondent father brought a cross-motion to terminate or vary support.

The court found that the adult child ceased being a 'child of the marriage' as of April 1, 2018, after withdrawing from parental control and failing to pursue a reasonable educational plan.

The court imputed an annual income of $54,000 to the applicant due to her failure to seek employment and her rent-free living situation.

The court allowed partial sharing of the respondent's post-separation income increases but ordered spousal support to terminate at the end of 2022.

The applicant's motion was dismissed and the respondent's cross-motion was granted.

The respondent father brought a motion to change the location and supervisors for his supervised parenting time.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion seeking various procedural and substantive relief, including an adjournment and striking parts of the father's affidavit.

The court dismissed the mother's cross-motion and granted the father's motion, finding that moving the supervised parenting time away from the maternal grandparents' home to the father's new residence, supervised by the paternal grandparents and a professional agency, would reduce conflict and was in the best interests of the children.

The applicant brought an enforcement motion after the respondent, who is incarcerated, failed to pay a court-ordered $15,000 generalized support payment.

The respondent unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal the support order and delayed payment until shortly before the enforcement motion was heard.

The court found the enforcement motion was justified due to legitimate doubt about payment and awarded the applicant costs of $2,754.55 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant brought a motion to appoint a replacement arbitrator after the original arbitrator resigned.

The respondents argued that the resignation terminated the arbitration process and the matter should return to court.

The court interpreted the parties' Mediation-Arbitration Agreement and the Arbitration Act, 1991, finding that a resignation constitutes a termination of the arbitrator's appointment, requiring the appointment of a replacement.

The court appointed the applicant's proposed replacement arbitrator and awarded costs to the applicant.

The applicant mother brought a motion to vary a temporary order regarding the choice of school for the parties' 5-year-old child and for further financial disclosure from the respondent father.

The temporary order gave the father decision-making authority over schooling, provided the school was approximately equidistant between their homes.

The schools previously considered would not accept the child due to catchment area rules.

The court interpreted the temporary order and directed that the child be enrolled at Nelson Mandela Public School, which was equidistant and willing to accept her.

The court also ordered the father to provide disclosure consistent with his undertaking in his affidavit.

No costs were awarded due to mixed success.

Following a successful motion by the respondent husband to suspend enforcement of support arrears and reduce ongoing support, the parties submitted written arguments on costs.

The respondent sought $16,353.36 in costs, arguing the applicant was unprepared, uncooperative, and unreasonable.

The applicant argued the respondent was uncooperative regarding a payment plan and was only partially successful.

The court found the respondent was the more successful party but reduced the requested amount to $12,000, ordering it to be set off against his support arrears owed to the applicant.

The respondent mother brought a motion to enforce a final parenting order, alleging the self-represented father had unilaterally withheld one child from her care and undermined her relationship with both children.

The court permitted the motion to proceed without a prior case conference under Rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules, finding urgency and a deteriorating relationship with the second child such that delay would be contrary to the children's best interests.

Applying authorities requiring a parent to take positive steps to ensure compliance with access and parenting orders, the court found the father in breach and rejected the position that a teenager's resistance excused non-compliance.

The court ordered prompt family reconciliation therapy and warned that continued breach could result in contempt consequences, while deferring non-urgent financial issues to the upcoming case conference.

The applicant father brought a motion to gradually expand his parenting time with the parties' 8-month-old child and to transition the visits from the mother's verandah to his own residence.

The mother sought an adjournment, citing the father's failure to provide a criminal record check and her desire to forensically review video evidence of an alleged assault, which the court dismissed.

The court granted the father's motion for expanded parenting time, finding that it was in the child's best interests to foster a meaningful relationship with the father away from the parents' conflict, and that the mother's concerns regarding breastfeeding and the father's past substance abuse were sufficiently addressed.

The applicant father brought a motion for expanded parenting time on a step-up basis for the parties' 4-year-old son.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, alleging past abuse and arguing the father was unengaged in the child's upbringing.

The court found the mother's position inflexible and not focused on the child's best interests, noting that the current arrangement of brief visits at a mall was insufficient for bonding.

The court granted the father's proposed step-up parenting plan and awarded him $12,000 in costs.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child support, alleging the respondent was the father of her child and was hiding his income.

The respondent, who was in Canada on a visitor's visa and facing criminal charges related to the conception, sought an adjournment, disputing paternity and claiming impecuniosity.

The court dismissed the adjournment request but found the motion for interim support premature.

The court ordered the parties to complete a paternity test and exchange financial disclosure before attending an urgent case conference.

This 7-day trial concerned a dispute over parenting time, decision-making, and telephone access for two children.

The applicant father sought to increase his parenting time to an equal shared schedule and maintain joint decision-making.

The respondent mother opposed, seeking to maintain the status quo parenting schedule and obtain sole decision-making authority, citing concerns about the father's parenting and the children's anxiety.

The court granted the father's request for a step-up plan to an equal parenting arrangement, maintained joint decision-making, and ordered specific telephone access rules and attendance at children's activities to reduce parental conflict.

The court found that a material change in circumstances was not necessary for the review of the parenting order, as the previous order contemplated future review.

The parties, an unmarried couple, each brought a motion to change parenting time for their two children.

The applicant father sought to expand his parenting time to an equal regime, while the respondent mother sought to reduce the father's parenting time and requested Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) involvement.

The court granted the father's request for equal temporary parenting time, finding his proposal to be in the children's best interests, and dismissed the mother's request to reduce time.

The court also requested OCL involvement and made orders regarding pick-up/drop-off locations and telephone access.

Costs were awarded to the father.

Various creditors of 1671379 Ontario Inc. and Manuel Elkind brought motions to determine priority status for garnishment payments owed by the City of St. Catharines and Region of Niagara under a Brownfield Tax Increment Based Incentive Grant Program Agreement (BTIG).

The primary dispute was between MCAP Financial Corporation, which held a registered and perfected security interest under the Personal Property Security Act (PPSA), and Assignment Credit Corp. (ACC), which claimed priority based on an assignment of a prior judgment.

The court found that MCAP's security interest, including the proceeds of the BTIG, maintained its priority status despite being reduced to a shortfall judgment.

The court dismissed ACC's claim for priority, finding that its assigned interest was subject to MCAP's prior perfected security and that ACC's claim should be limited to $400,000 as per a "Side Deal" in a previous endorsement.