Barry Nussbaum

The court considered whether a marriage should be annulled for non-consummation.

The applicant husband claimed the marriage was never consummated and sought an annulment; the respondent wife claimed consummation occurred and sought a divorce.

After reviewing the evidence, including the parties' testimony and medical records, the court found that the marriage was not consummated within the meaning of the law and that both parties were incapable of consummating it, not merely unwilling.

The court granted a declaration of nullity (annulment) and declined to find any other ground for annulment, such as immigration fraud or lack of consent.

This decision addresses a temporary care and custody motion under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, where the applicant society sought supervision terms to protect eight children from potential sexual abuse by the paternal grandfather.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe there was a probable risk of harm due to credible allegations from two adult children of the paternal grandparents and the father's refusal to cooperate fully with the society’s investigation.

The court ordered supervision terms including prohibiting contact between the children and the paternal grandparents and permitting the society to interview the children privately, emphasizing the necessity of these measures to ensure the children's protection.

The applicant brought a motion to remove an arbitrator due to undue delay by the arbitrator and the respondent's non-cooperation in the arbitration process.

The respondent failed to appear or file materials for the motion.

The court found that the arbitrator's unexplained delays, combined with the respondent's lack of engagement, caused significant prejudice to the applicant by preventing timely resolution of the matter, which was originally set for trial.

The court granted the motion, removed the arbitrator, terminated the mediation/arbitration agreement, and ordered the parties to return to the trial management process, awarding full indemnity costs to the applicant.

The applicant sought an order for her expert, Paul Mandel, to provide testimony at trial regarding the respondent's income and business valuation, despite a conflict of interest arising from Mandel joining MNP LLP, a firm that had previously provided services to the respondent.

The respondent opposed, arguing a conflict impacting Mandel's independence.

The court granted the applicant's motion, ordering Mandel to testify, limiting his scope to his original report.

The court found no actual conflict of interest that would preclude Mandel's testimony, distinguishing expert witnesses from lawyers regarding conflict rules, and emphasizing the expert's duty of impartiality.

Costs were awarded to the applicant, payable by both the respondent and MNP LLP.

The applicant brought a motion to proceed to an uncontested trial and to sell the matrimonial home after the respondent failed to file an Answer for over three months.

The respondent requested an extension of time to file his responding materials.

The court dismissed the respondent's request, finding the delay inordinate and unexplained.

The court granted the applicant's motion, allowing her to proceed uncontested and ordering the sale of the matrimonial home, with net proceeds to be held in trust.

The applicant, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, received notice of relocation to Manitoba and sought an urgent case conference after the respondent refused to consent to the child's relocation.

The court reviewed the recent relocation amendments to the Children's Law Reform Act, noting the applicant appeared to have complied with the notice requirements.

The court granted the request for an urgent case conference to allow the parties to receive judicial input on the new relocation protocol and ordered the respondent to formally notify the applicant of his objection.

This costs endorsement followed a trial regarding child support arrangements.

The maternal grandmother (L.L.M.L.) was the successful party and sought $22,407 in costs from the father (A.S.), who proposed $3,000.

The court considered the Family Law Rules, principles of success, offers to settle, and the treatment of costs for prior steps in a case.

The father's unreasonable conduct, including inadequate financial disclosure and an unwarranted claim of a shared parenting arrangement, significantly increased the litigation's duration and expense.

The court fixed costs at $8,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable by the father at $250 per month, with a provision for the full amount to become due upon late payments.

This trial concerned a claim for child support by the maternal grandmother (L.L.M.L.) against the father (A.S.) for the child (M.L.).

The primary issue was the father's income for child support calculation, specifically whether income should be imputed to him.

The court found the father not credible regarding his reported income and financial disclosure, drawing an adverse inference.

It imputed an annual income of $40,000 to the father from September 1, 2018, finding him intentionally under-employed.

The court also confirmed there was no shared custody arrangement, despite the father's false claim to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), and ordered child support arrears.

The father, U.K., brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the child, A.K., to Sugar Land, Texas, alleging wrongful removal or retention by the mother, N.A. The mother opposed, arguing the Hague Convention did not apply or, alternatively, that exceptions under Articles 12, 13(a), and 13(b) applied.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was Texas and that the removal was wrongful.

However, the court granted all three of the mother's exceptions: the father's subsequent acquiescence (particularly due to his withdrawal of the mother's green card application), grave risk of psychological harm or intolerable situation if the child were returned without the primary caregiver mother (due to her immigration status), and the child being settled in.

Consequently, the father's Hague Convention application was dismissed, and the Ontario Court of Justice assumed jurisdiction over the substantive custody and access issues.

The applicant mother brought an urgent, uncontested motion for parenting orders regarding the parties' three children following a separation involving allegations of physical violence.

The mother, who wished to return to Pakistan, surrendered her and the children's passports to her lawyer.

Based on the mother's unchallenged evidence, the court granted the requested relief, deemed the children habitually resident in Ontario, prohibited their removal from the province, and adjourned the matter to a case conference.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking leave to have an urgent motion heard regarding in-person access to the parties' child, which the respondent mother had been refusing since March 20, 2020, citing COVID-19 related facility closures.

The court noted that a new Central East Region protocol eliminated the requirement for leave on urgency grounds if a case conference had already been held, which was the case here.

Consequently, the father's motion for leave was dismissed without prejudice.

Father sought the return of a child to Germany under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, claiming wrongful retention by the mother in Canada.

The mother raised the Article 13(b) defence, alleging grave risk of harm to the child based on a pattern of domestic violence, coercive control, and isolation by the father.

The court found the mother credible and established a constellation of factors including physical and emotional abuse of the mother, emotional abuse of the child, control and isolation, and the insulated nature of the Syrian community in Germany.

The court concluded there was grave risk of ongoing physiological and psychological harm if the child were returned and dismissed the father's application.

The father applied under the Hague Convention for the immediate return of his three children from Canada to Israel, alleging wrongful removal by the mother.

The mother opposed the application, asserting that returning to Israel would expose her and the children to a grave risk of physical and psychological harm, and would place them in an intolerable situation, thereby invoking exceptions under Article 13(b) and Article 20 of the Hague Convention.

The court found a history of domestic abuse by the father against the mother, suspicious circumstances surrounding a grenade attack at the grandparents' home, and the father's use of intimidation.

The court also considered the mother and children's status as Convention Refugees in Canada, which created a rebuttable presumption of persecution risk if returned.

The court concluded that the mother had discharged her burden to prove the exceptions applied, and therefore dismissed the father's application for the children's return to Israel.

The Applicant sought joint custody and increased parenting time, while the Respondent sought sole custody and primary residence.

The court ordered joint custody, with specific decision-making authority split between the parents for different areas (medical/dental for the mother, education/religion for the father).

The parenting schedule was adjusted to provide the father with additional overnight time, but not the requested week-about schedule.

Child support was set at $125 per month payable by the father to the mother, with section 7 expenses shared equally, based on shared custody guidelines and the parties' current incomes.

The plaintiff, Somerville National Leasing and Rentals Ltd., brought an action against the defendant, Maria Vassileva, for $86,024.36 owed under a lease for a 2011 Rolls Royce.

The defendant denied signing the lease, alleging forgery by her estranged husband.

The court, applying the balance of probabilities standard, found the plaintiff's witness credible and the defendant's testimony inconsistent.

The court concluded that the defendant did sign the lease, noting her failure to pursue forgery allegations against her husband or call him as a witness.

Judgment was awarded to the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, plus pre-judgment interest and costs.

This is a costs endorsement following a one-day trial concerning parenting arrangements for two children.

The trial resulted in divided success: the mother obtained sole custody with decision-making authority on major issues, while the father obtained significantly expanded access beyond what he had previously enjoyed and successfully prevented the mother from changing the children's names or obtaining consent waivers for government documentation and international travel.

The court found both parties engaged in unreasonable behaviour during the proceedings.

The father sought costs of $10,000 while the mother sought no costs award.

The court fixed costs at $4,500 in favour of the father, payable at $500 per month commencing December 1, 2018.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the proceeding, arguing that Ontario courts lacked jurisdiction simpliciter or, alternatively, that Ontario was forum non conveniens.

The action was commenced by the plaintiffs for misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty related to a life insurance policy.

The court found that a presumptive connecting factor existed in Ontario because the deceased, Anna Neger, resided in Toronto until her death and likely received and acted upon the alleged misrepresentations in Ontario.

The defendants failed to rebut this presumption.

Furthermore, the court determined that Ontario was a convenient forum, considering factors such as the location of parties and witnesses, the applicable law, and the avoidance of a multiplicity of proceedings, despite the defendants' arguments regarding a defendant's immigration status and New York governing law for the trust agreement.

The motion to stay the proceeding was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

A trial concerning parenting arrangements for two children following the separation of the parties.

The mother sought sole custody with discretionary access for the father and the ability to change the children's surnames.

The father sought modified joint custody with expanded access and overnight visits during the school week.

The court found a material change in circumstances since the previous consent order and awarded sole custody to the mother while significantly expanding the father's access and involvement in the children's lives.

The court prohibited the mother from changing the children's surnames, finding the request was motivated by improper purposes.

The applicant grandmother brought an urgent motion for the return of her grandchild after the respondent biological father withheld the child following the death of the child's mother.

The child had resided with the applicant since 2012 when both parents were arrested on drug charges.

The court found the matter urgent due to the withholding of the child.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court determined that the status quo should be maintained.

The applicant was granted temporary primary residence and decision-making authority pending the respondent's criminal trial, with weekend access granted to the respondent.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial on multiple family law issues including parenting, custody, child support, and a restraining order request.

The applicant (father) sought costs of $11,684.61, while the respondent (mother) sought no costs award.

The court found the father was the successful party based on the trial outcome and settlement offers made.

The court awarded costs of $5,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $100 per month commencing January 1, 2018, with acceleration provisions for non-payment.