Annie Noa Kenet

A family law trial concerning child support and equalization following the separation of a married couple with one child.

The applicant father sought to reduce his child support obligations and contested the respondent mother's equalization claim.

The court found the applicant's income to be $45,000 per year based on his employment history and rejected the respondent's request to impute significantly higher income despite evidence of substantial unexplained spending.

The court awarded the respondent an equalization payment and costs on an elevated basis due to the applicant's poor disclosure compliance and conduct.

The husband brought a motion to strike the wife's family law application due to her failure to disclose an interest in a foreign company on her initial financial statement.

The wife brought a cross-motion to strike the husband's answer for his ongoing failure to comply with court orders requiring financial disclosure regarding his foreign assets and income.

The court dismissed the husband's motion, finding the wife had rectified her non-disclosure and striking her pleadings was not a proportionate remedy.

The court found the husband remained in breach of prior disclosure orders but granted him one final opportunity to produce the required documents before his answer would be struck.

The applicant father brought two motions: one to adjourn his pending parenting motion until a therapeutic counsellor's report was completed, and a Wagg motion seeking disclosure of the Crown brief from his criminal proceedings (where he was acquitted of sexual assault charges involving the children).

The respondent mother sought to have both motions dismissed.

The court granted the father's request to adjourn the parenting motion to avoid delay and costs if it needed to be heard later.

The court also granted the Wagg motion, finding it would be unfair to proceed without the documents and that the Attorney General had already screened them.

The applicant father brought a motion for increased interim parenting time with his six-year-old child, seeking additional overnights, earlier pick-up times, and extended summer access.

The respondent mother opposed any changes, arguing the status quo should be maintained until trial and that the father's proposed schedule would require a 45-minute commute to school.

The court rejected the mother's argument that changes must be deferred to trial, finding no need to prove urgency or a material change in circumstances for an interim order.

The court granted the father a Tuesday overnight, earlier pick-up times, extended time for PA days and statutory holidays, and additional summer weeks, but denied a Sunday overnight to avoid excessive commuting for the child.

The applicant father brought a motion to have the parties' eight-year-old child return to in-person schooling during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent mother opposed, seeking to continue online learning due to her chronic auto-immune disease and the young age of her other children.

Applying the factors from Zinati v. Spence, the court found that while the child was not at increased risk, the significant risk of harm to the mother and younger siblings outweighed the benefits of in-person learning.

The court ordered the child to continue with online learning for the 2020/2021 school year.

The appellant appealed an order appointing the Public Guardian and Trustee to represent him after he was found to be a 'special party' under Rule 2(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The Divisional Court determined that the standard of review for a court's finding of incapacity is palpable and overriding error.

The court found that the motion judge made no such error, as there was sufficient evidence of the appellant's bizarre behaviour and delusional thinking to conclude he appeared mentally incapable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party mother brought a motion to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) as the responding party father's representative, arguing he was a 'special party' under the Family Law Rules due to mental incapacity.

The father had previously been found incapable by the Ontario Court of Justice and exhibited ongoing bizarre and delusional behaviour, including wearing protest t-shirts to court and filing unintelligible materials comparing his family law case to residential schools and wartime internments.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the father failed to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his decisions and submissions, confirming his ongoing incapacity.

The motion was granted, the PGT was appointed, and the upcoming appeal date was vacated.

This is a costs decision arising from a motion to change a separation agreement regarding spousal and child support.

The respondent (former husband) sought to reduce his support obligations, claiming his income had substantially decreased.

The applicant (former wife) sought disclosure of the respondent's corporate interests and related financial information.

The respondent initially refused disclosure citing privacy concerns of other shareholders.

The court found the disclosure request reasonable and relevant to assessing the respondent's resources and ability to pay support.

The respondent ultimately agreed to provide disclosure subject to a confidentiality agreement.

The court awarded costs of $3,000 inclusive of HST to the applicant, finding the disclosure should not have taken 18 months to obtain and that the applicant's legal work was considerable.

Robert Must, a party previously declared mentally incapable and represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), sought leave to bring a motion in a family law proceeding.

The PGT opposed, citing a prior order that required court leave for Mr. Must to bring motions and arguing the current motion was not in his interest.

The court, respecting previous findings of incapacity and noting Mr. Must's continued "bizarre" and "incomprehensible" conduct, dismissed the motion for leave, affirming that only the PGT could bring motions on his behalf.

The appellant sought to appeal an order appointing the Public Guardian and Trustee as his legal representative after he was found to be a special party.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, holding that the order was interlocutory as it related to a procedural question and not the merits of the proceeding, meaning the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

In a family law proceeding following separation, the applicant sought several orders including severance of the issue of the validity of a marriage contract for determination at a preliminary trial, summary judgment for repayment of an alleged $200,000 loan, repayment of funds withdrawn from a joint line of credit, and permission to sell the matrimonial home without the respondent’s consent.

The respondent sought leave to amend his answer to claim spousal support, interim spousal support, disclosure relating to the applicant’s interest in an estate planning vehicle, and an order that proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home be held in trust.

The court held that the validity of the marriage contract should be severed and determined at a preliminary trial because doing so would likely narrow the issues and promote settlement without causing meaningful prejudice.

Summary judgment on the alleged loan and the request for immediate repayment of the line of credit withdrawal were dismissed.

The respondent was granted leave to amend his pleadings and was awarded interim spousal support despite the marriage contract, on a without‑prejudice basis pending determination of the contract’s validity.

The applicant sought costs following a contested family law motion, requesting full recovery costs of $33,539 or alternatively partial recovery costs of $22,136.

The respondent argued that a clause in a Partial Interim Separation Agreement barred any costs award or, alternatively, that costs should be limited to a substantially lower amount.

The court held that the contractual clause requiring each party to pay their own legal and professional fees did not waive the applicant’s right to seek a judicial award of costs.

Finding the applicant to be the successful party and noting that an offer to settle engaged full recovery entitlement for part of the proceeding, the court reduced the claimed amounts due to excessive hourly rates, duplication of work, and unnecessary attendance by multiple counsel.

Costs were fixed on an all‑inclusive basis.

The respondent moved to bifurcate a family law trial to determine custody, support, and the validity of a marriage contract before addressing equalization of net family property.

The applicant opposed and sought extensive financial disclosure, arguing the issues of property division and spousal support were interrelated.

The court held that the validity of the marriage contract and spousal support analysis under Miglin require knowledge of the parties’ financial positions at separation.

Because property equalization must precede spousal support and the issues were intertwined, bifurcation would risk prejudice and inefficiency.

The motion for bifurcation was dismissed and the respondent was ordered to provide full financial disclosure regarding assets and liabilities at separation.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant alleged the respondent forged her signature to obtain mortgages on the matrimonial home and cottage, placing the properties at risk of enforcement by a bank.

The court addressed motions concerning amendment of the application, the involvement of the lender, and the respondent’s ability to bring further motions while in contempt of prior court orders.

The court permitted the mortgage validity dispute to proceed through a civil action with the issue of the mortgages’ validity determined as a preliminary issue before the family court under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Because the respondent had failed to comply with multiple disclosure, support, and cost orders and had not met conditions imposed in a contempt order, his motion to vary support was struck.

The respondent was given a final opportunity to purge contempt before the applicant could move to strike his answer.

The respondent (father) brought a motion to stay the proceeding based on a separation agreement's dispute resolution provisions requiring mediation/arbitration.

The applicant (mother) opposed the motion.

The court granted the stay on condition that mediation/arbitration before Mr. Philip Epstein be commenced.

The respondent sought costs on a full indemnity basis, citing his success on the motion and two Offers to Settle.

The court declined to award costs, finding that the presumption of costs for the successful party was rebutted by the respondent's conduct, including failure to pay appropriate child support since 2008, non-compliance with financial disclosure obligations, and the financial hardship an award would cause the mother and children.

The mother commenced an application seeking sole custody, increased child support, spousal support, and financial disclosure.

The father brought a motion to stay the proceedings pursuant to section 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, relying on a dispute resolution clause in the parties' separation agreement that required all disputes to be referred to a mediator/arbitrator.

The mother argued that the father's failure to comply with the agreement, including his refusal to provide financial disclosure, invalidated the arbitration clause.

The court held that the father's breach did not abrogate the separation agreement or the arbitration clause.

The court found that the relief claimed fell within the scope of the arbitration provision and that the mother failed to establish any exception under section 7(2) of the Arbitration Act.

The father's motion was granted and the application was stayed pending mediation/arbitration.