Ari Max Rubin

This is a costs decision following a trial on child support issues.

The court had previously determined that the mother owed child support arrears of $19,045 and ordered her to pay ongoing child support of $597 monthly based on an imputed annual income of $40,000.

The father sought costs of $26,791.

The mother did not make written submissions but argued orally that she could not afford to pay costs in addition to her support obligations.

The court found the father was the more successful party at trial, though not completely successful.

The mother engaged in unreasonable conduct including misrepresenting her income, hiding income, and failing to provide timely financial disclosure.

The court awarded costs of $10,000, payable in monthly instalments of $200 starting January 1, 2026, taking into account the mother's limited financial circumstances while recognizing that her unreasonable conduct contributed to the litigation costs.

Trial decision determining the respondent mother's child support obligations for two children residing with the applicant father.

The parties had previously resolved parenting issues.

The central dispute concerned the mother's annual income for imputation purposes across three distinct periods: January to September 2023, October 2023 to December 2024, and after January 1, 2025.

The court found the mother deliberately underemployed or unemployed during certain periods, with justified reasons for the first period based on mental health needs following the death of a third child.

For the second period, the court drew adverse inferences from incomplete financial disclosure and imputed income based on substantial deposits into bank accounts from escort work.

For the third period, the court found the mother deliberately unemployed without valid excuse after April 1, 2025, despite completing a dental assistant program.

The court ordered child support arrears of $19,045 with payment deferred to January 1, 2026, at $200 monthly.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking an order for the Peel Children’s Aid Society to produce its file on the family and for expanded parenting time, including overnight visits, with his 4-year-old child.

The applicant mother consented to the CAS file production but opposed the expanded parenting time, citing an ongoing Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) investigation and allegations of family violence.

The court granted the order for the CAS file but dismissed the motion for expanded parenting time as premature, emphasizing the need to await the OCL report and considering the child's age and the family violence allegations.

The case concerns the equalization of net family property following a divorce.

Key issues included the valuation and exclusion of jewellery, the valuation of Pakistani investment certificates (Habib Bank Certificates), the beneficial ownership of Behbood Savings Certificates, the characterization of monetary gifts to the respondent's sisters, the treatment of religious Dasond obligations as a debt, and whether funds received from the respondent's brother constituted a loan.

The court determined the proper valuation of jewellery, found the premature encashment of Habib Certificates resulted in a loss borne by the respondent, dismissed the claim of beneficial ownership in Behbood Certificates, attributed a portion of the gifts to the respondent's net family property due to reckless depletion, ruled Dasond is not a secular debt, and found the brother's funds were a gift, not a loan.

Post-separation adjustments and dower claims were also addressed.

The applicant initiated proceedings for a simple divorce.

The respondent contested the separation date and sought to invalidate prenuptial and separation agreements, along with claims for equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The court bifurcated the trial to first determine the separation date and the validity of the agreements.

The court found the date of separation to be January 6, 2016, which consequently barred the respondent's property claims due to the statutory limitation period.

Additionally, the court upheld the validity and enforceability of both the prenuptial and separation agreements, dismissing the respondent's attempts to set them aside.

This family law trial concerned parenting time and decision-making responsibility for the child N.L., who had developed a strong alignment with the father and resisted contact with the mother.

The court found the father had manipulated the child's views and obstructed necessary medical and educational treatment for the child's ADHD and ODD.

The court granted sole decision-making responsibility to the mother, ordered a gradual expansion of her parenting time, including a two-week exclusive period during summer, and mandated reunification therapy for both parents and the child.

Child support was set off due to shared parenting.

This endorsement addresses the costs payable by the father to the mother following a child support trial and a motion to set aside parenting orders.

The mother sought $11,231.74 in costs.

The court found that the mother's offer to settle was more favourable than the trial result, triggering the costs consequences under subrule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court considered the father's unreasonable conduct, including failure to provide timely financial disclosure and repeated non-attendance, but also his ability to pay.

Ultimately, the court ordered the father to pay $8,000 in costs, crediting him $1,500 already paid, for a net balance of $6,500, payable in monthly installments.

The Applicant/Mother sought divorce, sole decision-making authority and primary residence for the child, supervised parenting time for the Father, retroactive and ongoing child support, a restraining order, and an order regarding a jointly purchased vehicle.

The Respondent/Father was noted in default and did not participate in the uncontested trial.

The court granted the Mother sole decision-making authority and primary residence, ordered supervised parenting time for the Father, imputed an interim income to the Father for child support purposes and ordered financial disclosure, issued a final restraining order against the Father, and ordered the Father to take over the car loan payments and reimburse the Mother for past payments, or transfer ownership to the Mother.

Costs were awarded to the Mother.