Areesha Zubair

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding party failed to provide a costs outline.

The applicant, Virginia Louise Bustin, sought temporary spousal support from the respondent, Rick Hendricus Vandenberg, despite a prior separation agreement waiving such support.

The court found that there were triable issues as to the validity and enforceability of the spousal support waiver, including concerns about power imbalance, lack of financial disclosure, and lack of legal advice.

The court exercised its discretion to order temporary spousal support of $5,300 per month, finding that the applicant had established a prima facie entitlement on both compensatory and needs-based grounds, and that the respondent had the ability to pay.

The court declined to order retroactive support at this stage, leaving that issue for trial.

The Ontario Court of Justice awarded costs to the mother after the father withdrew his motion to change child support terms contained in a separation agreement.

The court applied Family Law Rules subrule 12(3), which presumes the withdrawing party pays costs, and found no basis to rebut this presumption.

The father’s withdrawal at the first case conference caused the mother to incur costs preparing for the motion and case conference.

The court rejected the mother’s allegation of bad faith, finding the father’s withdrawal was a legal strategy.

The costs award was fixed at $4,000, reduced from the claimed $8,690, considering the father's limited financial circumstances.

The court allowed payment of arrears in monthly installments and ordered the costs to be enforceable as support by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office.

The Applicant mother initiated a motion to change a consent Final Order regarding decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and child support for their child, M. The court found a material change in circumstances due to the Respondent father's non-compliance with communication orders, abusive communication, and frustration of the Parenting Coordinator process.

The court granted the Mother sole decision-making responsibility (with a positive onus to consult), adjusted the parenting schedule to reduce the Father's weeknight overnights while extending one weekend per month, and ordered the Father to pay monthly child support and a proportionate share of s. 7 expenses with an annual cap.

The court declined to find parental alienation.

This family law trial addressed the enforceability of an alleged separation agreement, equalization of net family properties, post-separation adjustments, occupation rent, and the sale of two properties.

The court found no binding agreement existed, criticizing the husband's credibility and delay tactics.

The matrimonial home and a New York property were ordered to be sold.

The wife was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $187,677, while the husband was ordered to pay occupation rent of $3,500 per month from March 1, 2021, along with associated property expenses.

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 wife brought a motion seeking income imputation and retroactive and ongoing spousal support from the respondent husband.

The court declined to conduct a detailed income imputation inquiry or grant retroactive support on an interim motion, given the imminent trial and the complexity of the financial issues.

However, the court ordered the husband to pay ongoing temporary spousal support, including maintaining the wife's property expenses and an additional monthly sum, with tax efficiencies, until the final disposition of the proceedings.

The decision criticized both parties for their litigation conduct and the husband's failure to provide timely financial disclosure, emphasizing the need for efficiency and proportionality in family law cases.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated February 22, 2002.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $7,500.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order of Di Luca J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

The applicant, Anna Di Sabatino, sought full recovery costs after successfully obtaining interim spousal support.

The respondent, Mirko Di Sabatino, argued for no costs or costs in his favour, citing his offer to settle and denying bad faith.

The court found the applicant's offer to settle reasonable and more favourable than the outcome, and the respondent's offer "hollow" and reasonably rejected.

While the respondent's conduct, including prolonged disclosure violations, was deemed manifestly unreasonable, the court hesitated to make a formal finding of "bad faith" at this stage, noting the high threshold for such a finding.

Considering all factors, including the complexity and length of the motion, the court awarded the applicant $70,000 in all-inclusive costs, payable within 30 days, with specific enforcement provisions against the respondent's assets if not paid.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of a 30-year marriage.

The respondent, a successful businessperson with complex corporate structures, repeatedly failed to provide full financial disclosure, leading the court to draw an adverse inference.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $598,810 annually based on a conservative three-year average of his income, including personal benefits paid through his corporations.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $19,750 per month, retroactive to January 1, 2021, resulting in a lump sum payment of $256,750.

The parties separated after their four-year-old child ingested a small amount of a marijuana cookie left accessible by the father.

The mother unilaterally relocated with the child to Toronto and withheld contact.

Both parties sought primary care and sought to introduce surreptitious recordings of each other.

The court excluded the secret recordings, condemning the practice in family law.

The court ordered shared primary care on a 3-1-3 schedule proposed by the father, emphasizing the child's best interests and discouraging unilateral self-help measures.

The applicant, O.M., sought to confirm and replace provisions of minutes of settlement, including custody and access, alleging parental alienation by the respondent, S.K. S.K. made serious allegations of physical and sexual abuse against O.M. and sought primary custody with supervised access.

The court found S.K.'s evidence not credible due to internal inconsistencies and her behavior following the alleged incidents.

The court found that S.K. engaged in parental alienation strategies.

Consequently, the court granted O.M. temporary sole custody and primary care of the child, with limited access to S.K., and confirmed the minutes of settlement regarding exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and spousal support.

Interim child support was ordered in accordance with the minutes of settlement, with O.M. entitled to seek reconciliation for overpayments.

The respondent sought an adjournment of the applicant's motion, citing counsel unavailability and medical reasons.

The court denied the request, emphasizing the best interests of the child, the need for expeditious resolution of parenting issues, and the lack of sufficient evidentiary support for the adjournment grounds.

The court found the respondent's conduct, including unilateral withholding of access and inconsistent actions regarding minutes of settlement, weighed against granting the adjournment.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

This family law proceeding involved an application for child support, spousal support, and access.

The court addressed the striking of the applicant's pleadings due to non-disclosure, finding that the applicant had largely complied and that a previous order to strike did not meet the requirements of Kovachis v. Kovachis.

The court imputed an income of $65,000 per year to the self-employed applicant for child support purposes, ordered retroactive child support of $42,700, and ongoing child support of $966 per month, plus 65% of Section 7 expenses.

The respondent's claim for spousal support was denied based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court also granted the respondent the ability to apply for children's passports and travel with the children without the applicant's consent, subject to providing an itinerary.

The applicant's request for a more flexible access schedule was denied, and the existing alternate weekend access schedule was maintained.

The appellant wife appealed a trial judgment dismissing her claims for equalization of net family property and a beneficial interest in the former matrimonial home.

The parties had separated in 2006, settled all matters through a Minutes of Settlement in 2007, and reconciled at the end of May 2007.

Upon reconciliation, the wife received a disability payment which was deposited into the husband's account and used to pay household bills and mortgage.

The husband later transferred the home to his mother.

The trial judge upheld the validity of the Minutes of Settlement and dismissed the wife's claims.

The appellate court affirmed, finding that the Minutes of Settlement clearly expressed the parties' intention to exclude future property from equalization upon reconciliation, and that the wife failed to establish a resulting trust claim.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order denying her temporary spousal support and awarding $2,500 in costs to the respondent.

The court applied the two-part test under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While acknowledging another judge might have reached a different conclusion on entitlement, the court found the applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposed appeal involved matters of general importance transcending the parties' interests.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with no costs.