Avy Jordan Ben-Zvi

The Applicant sought various orders, including intensive family reunification therapy for the children and the Respondent, a 90-day "black-out" period where children would reside with the Applicant without contact with the Respondent, and payment of therapy fees.

The court dismissed the requests for intensive therapy and the black-out period due to insufficient evidence on the nature of the therapy and the children's views, particularly given their ages.

The court ordered a division of outstanding and future Accendus Group fees between the parties, clarifying the scope of a previous order by Miller J. The Applicant's request for additional costs from a prior motion was dismissed.

The former wife brought a motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal a procedural order dismissing her motion for valuations, and for a stay pending appeal.

The motion was brought approximately 90 days after the deadline.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence explaining the delay was inadequate and uncorroborated.

Furthermore, as the underlying order was procedural, the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the former husband.

This protracted and acrimonious family law trial addressed equalization, division of matrimonial home equity, child support arrears, spousal support arrears, and prospective spousal support.

The court found the respondent lacked credibility, particularly regarding his deliberate non-disclosure of a $3 million Retirement Compensation Arrangement (RCA) Trust and his intertwined finances with a common-law partner.

The applicant was found credible.

The court awarded the applicant a significant equalization payment, pre-judgment interest, and substantial retroactive and prospective lump-sum spousal support, while dismissing the respondent's claims for occupational rent and dispositional costs.

The RCA Trust was deemed income for support purposes, not an asset for equalization.

The applicant initiated proceedings seeking divorce, sole custody of the parties' two daughters, and their return to Toronto from Lebanon, where the respondent had unilaterally relocated with them.

The applicant also sought a finding of contempt against the respondent for breaching prior court orders.

The court affirmed Ontario's jurisdiction based on the children's habitual residence and granted sole custody to the applicant.

It ordered the respondent to immediately return the children to Toronto at her own expense and to take all necessary steps to lift any existing travel bans.

Furthermore, the court found the respondent in contempt of court orders and issued a warrant for her arrest.

The court declined to issue orders directly compelling foreign police forces but utilized its parens patriae jurisdiction to request assistance from Canadian and Lebanese authorities for the children's return.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order granting an adjournment of a summary judgment motion on the condition that the respondent's application for divorce be severed from the corollary issues.

The appellant argued the motion judge failed to consider whether the severance would disadvantage her under Rule 12(6) of the Family Law Rules.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge properly balanced the interests of both parties and that there was no evidence the appellant would be disadvantaged by the severance, given the terms of the parties' separation agreement.

The appellant sued the respondents for $500,000 for stolen consigned jewelry.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action as statute-barred.

On appeal, the appellant argued that an e-mail from the respondent constituted an acknowledgment of liability under s. 13(1) of the Limitations Act, 2002, and that promissory estoppel prevented reliance on the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the e-mail did not clearly and unequivocally acknowledge the debt, and there was no promise to forgo the limitation period.

Following a family law trial involving issues of custody, access, support, and equalization, both parties sought costs.

The court reviewed the parties' respective offers to settle and their conduct during the proceedings.

Finding that success was mixed and that both parties exhibited roughly equal degrees of unreasonableness, the court ordered that neither party was entitled to costs and each should bear their own.

In a family trial arising from a marriage breakdown involving four children, the court resolved disputed issues of separation date, custody and access, child support, spousal support, income, and equalization.

The court preferred the respondent’s evidence on key credibility disputes, fixed the separation date at September 19, 2012, and declined to adopt a parallel parenting regime despite the respondent’s request.

Sole custody remained with the applicant, with structured access and mutual information-sharing terms.

Both parties’ current incomes were found to be zero, child support was fixed at zero, section 7 expenses were ordered shared equally, and the applicant’s entitlement to compensatory spousal support was recognized but quantified at $1 per year pending review.

On property issues, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent an equalization payment of $10,380.21.

On a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a spouse's corollary relief claim and preservation of a separation agreement, the court held the motion could not proceed because a pending Divisional Court appeal challenged an earlier severance order.

The court applied Rule 16(2) of the Family Law Rules, which prohibits deciding a claim that includes a divorce by summary judgment motion.

Given the unresolved validity of the severance, the court declined to hear the motion, converted the attendance into a case conference, and directed the parties to return after the appeal ruling.

Costs were deferred.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that granted her an adjournment of a summary judgment motion on the condition that the divorce be severed from corollary issues.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in principle by severing the divorce without specifically determining whether the moving party would be disadvantaged or prejudiced, as required by Rule 12(6) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found good reason to doubt the correctness of the order and that the issue was of sufficient importance to warrant leave.

Following an appeal of a child support order, the parties were unable to agree on the calculation of interest on the arrears.

The Divisional Court calculated the interest as simple interest at 5% per year, beginning March 1, 2000, and varied the lower court's order to reflect total arrears of $27,664.63.

The applicant mother brought two motions: one seeking to strike the respondent father's case for failure to comply with a disclosure order, and another seeking security for costs of a custody trial estimated at $50,000 on private retainer or $20,000-$30,000 with Legal Aid.

The father opposed both motions and sought dismissal.

The court found that while the mother established grounds for a security for costs order based on the father's non-Ontario residence and lack of sufficient financial disclosure, a trial was not necessary.

The father's joint custody claim was characterized as a nuisance claim due to his persistent secrecy about his circumstances, lack of legal status in Canada, and failure to provide adequate disclosure despite repeated court orders.

The court made the mother's temporary custody order final and stayed the father's joint custody claim under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules.