Avra Rosen

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision regarding the production of documents and removal of counsel.

The Divisional Court granted leave in part, noting conflicting jurisprudence on whether the intent to commit civil fraud vitiates solicitor-client privilege, and similar issues regarding documents photographed in breach of privacy.

Leave to appeal the refusal to remove the wife's lawyer as counsel of record was denied.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $3,000.

The respondent brought a motion challenging the Superior Court's jurisdiction to hear the applicant's claim for corollary relief under the Divorce Act, given a separation agreement previously filed in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The respondent subsequently withdrew the motion but still sought an order for mediation and costs.

The court determined that the applicant was the successful party, as the court did have jurisdiction to hear the corollary relief application.

The court declined to reserve costs to the trial judge and ordered the respondent to pay costs of $11,000 to the applicant.

The parties separated after a lengthy marriage during which the respondent husband was the primary earner and the applicant wife was the primary caregiver.

Following a brief separation, the parties reconciled and signed a marriage contract granting the wife the matrimonial home and its contents in the event of a future separation.

The parties separated again, and the husband sought to set aside the contract on grounds of duress and unconscionability.

The court upheld the contract, finding no duress or inequality of bargaining power.

The court also determined equalization, imputed income to the wife, calculated the husband's income using a three-year average, ordered spousal support, and apportioned the adult child's educational expenses.

This case concerns a motion to change a 2015 consent order regarding child support and parenting.

The primary issues were retroactive child support for 2020, 2021, and 2023, and the father's contribution to private school expenses for 2022-2023.

The court found the father failed to prove 40% parenting time for 2020, ordering retroactive support.

For 2021, the court included the father's significant income from stock option proceeds ($7.5M) for child support purposes, as mandated by Schedule III of the Ontario Child Support Guidelines.

However, applying Section 4 of the Guidelines for high-income earners, the court deemed the full Table amount inappropriate, finding it would constitute an impermissible wealth transfer to the mother.

Instead, the court ordered retroactive support based on doubling the child's budget for that year.

The father was also ordered to contribute to private school tuition, as his withdrawal of consent was deemed unreasonable.

The court also adjusted child support for 2022 and 2023 based on actual parenting time and income.

The respondent father brought a motion for an interim variation of an arbitral child support award, arguing that his child support obligations should be reduced to 'summer support' because two of the adult children were attending post-secondary school away from home.

The court treated the motion as one for an interim variation of a final support order, requiring the father to show a strong prima facie case, a clear case of hardship, urgency, and clean hands.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father failed to provide evidence that the mother's household expenses were significantly reduced or that the table amount produced a windfall, and therefore failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the standard Guidelines approach was inappropriate.

The respondent, Lorne Howard Albaum, brought a motion to vary an interim spousal support order, seeking to reduce his monthly payments from $65,625 to $24,340.

He asserted a catastrophic change in his income due to the COVID-19 pandemic and stock market impact, and challenged the applicant's (Donna Jodi Albaum) expenses and corporate income.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Lorne failed to meet the heavy onus required to vary an interim order, as the issues raised were largely already considered by the previous judge or existed at the time of the original order.

The court also noted Lorne's lack of updated expert evidence and inconsistencies in his claims of hardship, given his continued privileged lifestyle and delays in litigation.

The parties separated after a long marriage during which the applicant was primarily a homemaker and the respondent built a successful legal career.

At trial, the court determined the equalization of net family property, including the valuation of the respondent's home, his interest in a Florida LLC, and corporate debts.

The court also determined the respondent's income for support purposes, attributing some corporate pre-tax income to him, and ordered retroactive and ongoing spousal support based on both compensatory and needs-based grounds.

The applicant father brought an urgent, ex parte motion for sole custody and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, which was initially granted but later reversed when the respondent mother provided her materials.

The respondent sought costs on a full recovery basis.

The court found that the applicant acted in bad faith by failing to provide full and frank disclosure on the ex parte motion, deliberately misleading the court regarding the mother's drug use and mental health.

The court awarded the respondent costs on a full recovery basis in the amount of $17,764.80.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of a traditional marriage.

The respondent, a high-income earner operating a mini-tender business through various corporations, argued his income was highly volatile and currently nil.

The court applied a cautious approach to income determination on an interim basis, accepting the respondent's expert's calculation of a three-year average income of $1.8 million, which accounted for necessary corporate retained earnings.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $65,625 per month based on the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, commencing February 1, 2021.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking a temporary equal parenting schedule for the parties' two children after the respondent mother left the matrimonial home and severely restricted his access.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking primary residence, supervised access for the father, and a section 30 assessment, alleging the father was a safety risk.

The court relied on a Children's Aid Society investigation that found no protection concerns and concluded it was in the children's best interests to have equal access to both parents.

The court granted the father's request for a 2-2-3 parenting schedule and dismissed the mother's request for a section 30 assessment.

Following a successful appeal of a summary judgment order, a dispute arose regarding the settling of the court's order on costs.

The respondents argued that a portion of the motion judge's costs order related to a support motion should remain intact.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the appellant that the motion judge had awarded a global amount for all motions, which were intertwined.

The court clarified that the entire costs award below was set aside and reserved to the trial judge.

Jennifer Leitch sought an order to immediately list and sell the matrimonial home (the "Farm") without Anthony Novac's consent and to retain the net proceeds.

Anthony opposed, seeking to participate in the sale and have proceeds held in trust, with certain amounts paid to him for costs and chattels.

The court found Anthony unreasonably withheld consent by imposing conditions.

The court authorized Jennifer to sell the Farm with sole authority over negotiations and closing, subject to agreed-upon terms for listing and a minimum price.

The net proceeds, after payment of a $5,000 Divisional Court costs order, are to be released to Jennifer, rejecting Anthony's request to hold them in trust or for immediate payment of other claimed amounts, to ensure Jennifer's access to justice for ongoing complex litigation.

The appellant wife sought damages for conspiracy against her husband and his family, alleging they diverted business proceeds to reduce her support payments.

The motion judge granted partial summary judgment dismissing the conspiracy claim and awarded substantial costs against the wife.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by improperly bifurcating issues, misapplying the tort of conspiracy in the family law context, and making palpable factual errors regarding critical evidence.

The Court emphasized that the tort of conspiracy is a valuable tool to deter non-disclosure and ensure collectibility of judgments in family law.

The appeal was allowed, the partial summary judgment and associated costs orders were set aside, and a new trial was ordered before a different judge.

The court awarded the Respondent mother, Evelyn Walsh, full recovery costs of $420,000.00 against the Applicant father, Joshua Louis Goldstein, following a 12-day custody and access trial.

The award was based on the father's bad faith and unreasonable conduct throughout the litigation, including making false allegations, misleading the court, and unduly complicating issues, as well as the mother beating her Rule 18 Offer to Settle.

The court found the father's conduct permeated the litigation, driving up legal fees, and that his truncated Bill of Costs was disingenuous.

The respondent Anthony Novac and third-party respondents (collectively "Novac/Sonco") brought motions for a preservation order and security for costs, respectively, against the applicant Jennifer Ann Leitch.

These motions followed a prior judgment where Leitch was ordered to pay significant costs.

Anthony sought a preservation order for Leitch's assets, including the Caledon farm property, and alternatively, its transfer to him based on a trust claim.

Novac/Sonco sought security for costs and preservation of the farm and artwork.

Leitch opposed, wishing to sell the farm and arguing against priority for creditors and lack of grounds for a Mareva injunction.

The court dismissed Anthony's request for the farm's transfer but granted the preservation orders for the farm and artwork in Leitch's possession, finding that Leitch's financial circumstances and prior unreasonable conduct justified securing the substantial costs awards.

The applicant, Jennifer Ann Leitch, brought a motion for a declaration of conspiracy and damages, while the respondent, Anthony James Charles Novac, brought a cross-motion for a decrease in child and spousal support.

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

This ruling addresses the significant costs sought by the successful respondent and third-party respondents (Novac/Sonco) against the applicant.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, the complexity of the issues, the applicant's unreasonable litigation strategy, and the proportionality of the costs.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments for reducing costs based on the respondent's alleged misrepresentation of income or her limited means, emphasizing that the applicant, a litigation lawyer, understood the risks.

The applicant wife alleged that her former husband and his family (the third-party respondents) engaged in a complex civil conspiracy to hide his income and assets through corporate restructuring and family trusts, thereby defeating her claims for child and spousal support.

The third-party respondents brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the conspiracy claims, while the applicant brought a cross-motion for partial summary judgment.

The husband also brought a motion to retroactively reduce his interim support obligations, arguing his income had materially decreased.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the third-party respondents' motion, dismissing the conspiracy claims, finding that the corporate transactions were undertaken for legitimate tax and estate planning purposes, not to harm the applicant.

The court also granted the husband's motion to vary support, significantly reducing his child and spousal support obligations retroactively to January 1, 2017, based on a material change in his income.

The parties, who never married, sought a final determination of custody, access, and child support for their three-year-old child.

The applicant father sought joint custody and a continuation of a week-about schedule in Toronto, while the respondent mother sought sole custody and primary residence in Buffalo.

The court found that the applicant had previously misled the court to obtain an ex parte custody order and consistently failed to consult the respondent on major decisions, demonstrating an inability to co-parent effectively.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court awarded sole custody and primary residence to the respondent mother, with a generous access schedule for the applicant father.

The parties were ordered to share section 7 expenses proportionate to their incomes.

This endorsement addresses a request for costs "thrown away" due to the adjournment of a trial date.

The applicant had requested the adjournment, and the respondent sought costs.

The court found that the adjournment was caused by the applicant's failure to adhere to a consent timetable for pleadings.

While the delay was not wilful, the respondent was entitled to costs thrown away.

The court clarified what constitutes "costs thrown away" in this context, excluding work done prior to the specific adjournment for which costs were sought.

Costs were fixed at $1,000.00 on a partial indemnity basis.