Avra Rosen

The applicant wife brought a motion to strike the respondent husband's pleadings for failure to make financial disclosure, which was dismissed as the disclosure orders had been largely fulfilled by the hearing date.

Both parties subsequently sought costs of the motion on a full indemnity basis.

The court noted the wife's argument that the husband's repeated inadequate disclosure necessitated the motion, while the husband argued he was successful on the motion.

Given the lengthy history of the case and the triable issues regarding the adequacy of disclosure, the court reserved the costs of the motion to the trial judge to ensure fairness.

In an ongoing family law arbitration regarding property valuation, the moving party husband sought to introduce 2015 year-end financial statements.

The arbitrator adjourned the hearing to allow the parties to seek direction from the Superior Court on the admissibility of the documents under section 6.1 of the Arbitration Act.

The court reluctantly accepted jurisdiction due to the parties' consent and the unique circumstances.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the documents were inadmissible hearsay as the author was not being called as a witness and the arbitration agreement limited witnesses to the parties' experts.

In a family law motion following a consent order governing parenting and financial responsibilities, the applicant sought reimbursement for expenses she paid pursuant to the prior order, including utilities, property-related expenses, line of credit payments secured against the matrimonial home, rental property shortfall, and children’s expenses.

The respondent argued the payments had been made from joint funds and that reimbursement would amount to double recovery.

The court held that the prior consent order required equal contributions to specified expenses and had not been followed by the respondent.

Accepting the applicant’s evidence that she personally paid the expenses and that the respondent failed to contribute as required, the court ordered reimbursement.

The respondent was ordered to pay $40,208.60 from funds held in trust from the sale of a jointly owned property, with other claims for extraordinary expenses adjourned to trial.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to set aside an order striking her pleadings for contempt due to failure to provide court‑ordered disclosure and to set aside a subsequent final order made after an undefended trial granting the respondent an equalization payment and other relief.

The court reviewed the procedural history, noting that the applicant had been repeatedly given opportunities to purge her contempt and comply with disclosure and costs orders but failed to do so.

The applicant did not appeal the earlier orders and did not bring a timely motion within the deadline permitted by the earlier order striking her pleadings.

The court held that the applicant was not entitled to notice of the subsequent undefended trial and failed to establish any basis to set aside the earlier orders.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent.

Following a three-week family law trial concerning custody and care of children, the court issued supplementary reasons to determine unresolved financial matters.

The court addressed retroactive child support arrears, s. 7 special expenses, allocation of assessment costs, responsibility for reunification therapy expenses, and management of the children’s RESP.

The court refused to consider new evidence or recalculations not introduced during trial and limited its determinations to evidence properly before the court.

The respondent was ordered to pay confirmed child support arrears and outstanding s. 7 expenses from the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home, and to bear two-thirds of the reunification therapy costs.

The parties agreed that the applicant would continue managing the children’s RESP for future post-secondary education expenses.

In a high‑conflict family law proceeding involving allegations of parental alienation and significant breakdown in the parent‑child relationship, the court issued detailed parenting, therapeutic, and financial orders following trial.

The court granted custody of the children to the respondent father subject to supervision by the Children’s Aid Society and a structured reunification process designed to restore the children’s relationship with the applicant mother.

Extensive therapeutic intervention through a specialized centre was ordered for the parents and children, with reporting requirements and a scheduled review.

The court also made orders concerning access, child support, section 7 expenses, pension division, and property issues.

The decision emphasized reunification therapy, parental conduct requirements, and court oversight pending review.

In a high‑conflict custody dispute following marital breakdown, the applicant mother alleged the respondent father had engaged in extensive parental alienation, while the father alleged longstanding abusive discipline by the mother.

Evidence included psychological assessments, extensive recorded conversations between the father and children, and testimony from therapists and medical professionals.

The court found the father had engaged in significant alienating conduct that damaged the children’s relationship with their mother, though the mother’s rigid parenting style also contributed to the family dysfunction.

Despite these findings, the court concluded an immediate transfer of custody would risk further harm, particularly to the older child who was severely enmeshed with the father and experiencing depression.

Custody remained temporarily with the father under supervision of the Children’s Aid Society, with structured reunification therapy and a scheduled judicial review.

The respondent sought to enforce interim child and spousal support payments previously ordered, while the applicant sought relief from paying arrears and a retroactive reduction of support based on the respondent's new employment.

The court found the applicant's expert report on his self-employment income inadequate and ordered the applicant to pay the arrears from funds held in trust.

The court also set temporary ongoing child and spousal support based on imputed incomes of $89,000 for the applicant and $41,000 for the respondent.

Following a family law trial concerning property division and support, the court determined costs after receiving written submissions.

The husband had made an offer to settle that was more favourable to the wife than the eventual judgment, engaging the presumptive entitlement to costs under the Family Law Rules and supporting substantial indemnity recovery.

Although the husband sought up to $792,447.47 in full recovery costs, the court found the claim disproportionate given the relatively brief and uncomplicated four‑day trial.

Applying the fairness and reasonableness principles from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council and reviewing comparable family law authorities, the court reduced the amount significantly.

The wife was ordered to pay $265,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, with payment tied to the sale of her home unless an undertaking was not provided.

The moving party sought to terminate or reduce spousal support following retirement from employment due to alleged illness and disability, and also requested termination of a life insurance obligation securing the support.

The court considered whether retirement and changes in income constituted a material change in circumstances under s. 17(4.1) of the Divorce Act.

Despite retirement, the court found the payor’s financial position had improved and remained significantly stronger than the recipient’s, who continued to face financial hardship after a long-term marriage.

The court held that no material change had occurred and rejected arguments relating to alleged double recovery from the payor’s pension.

The application to terminate or reduce spousal support and remove the insurance obligation was dismissed.

Following a long marriage with three children, the court determined property equalization, spousal support, and child support issues after the parties agreed on a parenting plan.

The primary dispute concerned valuation of significant real estate assets for net family property calculation.

The court preferred one expert appraisal over another and determined the values of the matrimonial home and a farm property, resulting in an equalization payment payable to the applicant.

Despite the long marriage and the applicant’s role as homemaker, spousal support was denied due to the applicant’s substantial assets and investment income.

Guideline child support was ordered based on the respondent’s reduced income following job loss, and the parties were required to share section 7 expenses equally.

The responding party was previously found in contempt for failing to provide financial disclosure.

She failed to purge her contempt, did not attend subsequent hearings citing medical issues, and failed to pay outstanding costs orders.

The moving party moved to strike her pleadings.

The court found a consistent pattern of non-compliance and struck the responding party's pleadings, granting the moving party leave to proceed with an undefended trial.

Costs of $15,000 on a full recovery basis were awarded to the moving party.