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.

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 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.