Belinda Rossi

The applicant sought an interim order for equal parenting time with the child of the marriage.

The parties, married in 2010 and separated in 2022, continued to reside in the matrimonial home with extended family.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing it was premature given unresolved issues like housing and support, and that mediation should precede a formal order.

The court found the affidavit evidence conflicting and declined to make credibility findings at this early stage.

The motion for a 50/50 parenting schedule was dismissed, with the court emphasizing the maintenance of the status quo and the need for the parties to resolve broader issues through mediation and a full case conference.

Specific interim orders were made to guide parental conduct and communication.

This is a case management ruling in a family law matter where the court converted a long motion and cross-motion into a case management attendance due to excessive materials and the need for directions.

The respondent husband was found to be non-compliant with previous court orders, including failing to provide a reliable financial statement, not disclosing a significant inheritance, and dissipating funds intended for spousal support.

The court appointed an expert to value the husband's corporate interests and income and to trace funds.

The court ordered the husband to provide security in the amount of $650,000 for the equalization payment, citing his concerning conduct and the potential unenforceability of future orders.

The husband's motion for interim disbursements was dismissed.

The ruling also set strict directions for future motions and a timeline for further proceedings, including a third-party disclosure motion and a motion to strike the husband's pleadings.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's financial pleadings for failing to comply with an interim order requiring him to pay child support, spousal support, and costs, and to provide financial disclosure.

The father admitted the breach but argued he had provided significant disclosure and was impecunious.

The court rejected the impecuniosity defence, noting the father owned a Ferrari and had an admitted income of $337,000.

However, given the complexity of the financial issues and the principle that striking pleadings is a remedy of last resort, the court granted the father one final opportunity to comply with the interim order before his pleadings would be struck.

The applicant wife sought interim child and spousal support.

The court determined the appropriate formula for child support for a child attending university away from home, setting it at the mid-point between the full table amount and the summer formula.

The court also ordered spousal support at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) range due to the long-term marriage, the wife's post-separation financial disadvantage, and the husband's failure to pay proper support or provide full disclosure.

Arrears for both child and spousal support were calculated and ordered.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, including retroactive support dating back to the parties' 2019 separation.

The husband, who had been the primary earner during their 25-year marriage, paid no support for over two years after separation despite earning substantial income.

The court found the husband engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to pay support and ordered interim child and spousal support retroactive to January 1, 2021.

Issues of intentional underemployment and exact quantum were deferred to trial or further submissions.

The applicant, Anna Di Sabatino, sought full recovery costs after successfully obtaining interim spousal support.

The respondent, Mirko Di Sabatino, argued for no costs or costs in his favour, citing his offer to settle and denying bad faith.

The court found the applicant's offer to settle reasonable and more favourable than the outcome, and the respondent's offer "hollow" and reasonably rejected.

While the respondent's conduct, including prolonged disclosure violations, was deemed manifestly unreasonable, the court hesitated to make a formal finding of "bad faith" at this stage, noting the high threshold for such a finding.

Considering all factors, including the complexity and length of the motion, the court awarded the applicant $70,000 in all-inclusive costs, payable within 30 days, with specific enforcement provisions against the respondent's assets if not paid.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of a 30-year marriage.

The respondent, a successful businessperson with complex corporate structures, repeatedly failed to provide full financial disclosure, leading the court to draw an adverse inference.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $598,810 annually based on a conservative three-year average of his income, including personal benefits paid through his corporations.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $19,750 per month, retroactive to January 1, 2021, resulting in a lump sum payment of $256,750.

The respondent wife brought a motion for interim spousal support, retroactive support, and security for support.

The parties separated after a 15-year marriage with no children, and there was a significant income disparity between them.

The court found the wife had a needs-based entitlement to support but declined to base the quantum on the husband's anomalous 2020 income or to order a 50/50 net disposable income split.

The court imputed an income of $60,000 to the wife and based the husband's income on his 2019 earnings of $280,000, ordering interim spousal support of $5,000 per month retroactive to the date of notice.

Claims for further retroactive support were dismissed as premature pending full financial disclosure.

Following a successful motion by the applicant to have the parties' children attend school in-person in Etobicoke, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The applicant sought $22,404 on a full recovery basis from the date of his offer to settle.

The respondent argued costs should be reserved or limited to $9,000.

The court found the applicant was presumptively entitled to costs and had met the terms of his offer to settle.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded the applicant $15,000 in costs, payable in installments.

Following a motion for temporary parenting orders where the respondent was largely successful, the court determined the costs to be awarded.

The respondent sought $66,070 on a full recovery basis, arguing the applicant engaged in bad faith.

The court found the applicant's conduct was unreasonable, though not in bad faith, and that the respondent beat his offer to settle, entitling him to full recovery from the date of the offer.

After reducing some duplicate dockets, the court fixed costs payable by the applicant to the respondent at $50,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' two children, both of whom have special needs, attend in-person schooling at their current schools in Etobicoke.

The respondent mother opposed, seeking to enroll the children in schools in Meaford where she had temporarily relocated, or alternatively, that they continue virtual learning.

The court found that the mother's proposed change of schools amounted to a relocation under the Divorce Act, which she had not properly initiated.

The court held that the mother failed to demonstrate that the proposed new schools would better meet the children's special needs than their current schools, and ordered that the children attend their Etobicoke schools in person.

The parties brought competing motions for temporary parenting time and decision-making authority.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making and supervised parenting time for the respondent father, alleging an imminent risk of child abduction to Iran.

The respondent father sought equal parenting time and joint decision-making, alleging the applicant was alienating the children.

The court struck the applicant's expert affidavit on Iranian passport law for lack of independence.

The court found no credible risk of abduction and ordered equal parenting time on a week on/week off basis, joint decision-making, and continued a mutual non-removal order.

The respondent's request for an advance on matrimonial home proceeds was dismissed without prejudice.

The applicant wife brought a motion for extensive financial disclosure from the respondent husband regarding his personal finances and interests in over twenty companies.

The court ordered the husband to provide the requested disclosure, including a proper financial statement, tax returns, and corporate records, by specified deadlines.

The court dismissed the wife's request for non-party production orders as premature.

The court also ordered the husband to retain a business valuation expert by a set date, failing which it would consider appointing the wife's expert as a court-appointed expert.

At a family law case conference, the applicant wife sought orders for financial disclosure and costs.

The respondent husband had delayed providing complete financial disclosure for over two years and provided an Estimate Valuation Report instead of a Comprehensive Valuation Report.

The court ordered the husband to pay $60,000 for the wife's expert disbursements, $20,000 for expenses incurred due to delayed disclosure, and $10,000 for the costs of the unproductive case conference.

This costs endorsement followed an interim spousal support motion where the respondent was entirely successful.

The court found the applicant's persistent failure to provide adequate financial disclosure to be unreasonable, complicating the matter and increasing litigation costs.

Applying the principles of costs from Serra v. Serra and the Family Law Rules, particularly Rule 24(11) and Rule 24(5) regarding party behaviour, and Rule 18(14) concerning offers to settle, the court determined that the applicant's conduct warranted a full recovery costs award.

The respondent had also beaten all her offers to settle.

The respondent wife moved for interim spousal support following a short 10-month marriage.

The applicant husband had sponsored the wife for Canadian citizenship and conceded entitlement to support but failed to provide adequate financial disclosure.

The court imputed an annual income of $200,000 to the husband based on his lifestyle and undisclosed assets/corporate interests.

The court ordered the husband to pay $4,595.00 per month in interim spousal support, retroactive to the date of the Answer, and lump sum retroactive support to the date of separation, considering the immigration sponsorship undertaking and the wife's need.

The husband was also directed to produce the sponsorship agreement and immigration file.

The applicant sought occupation rent after leaving the jointly owned matrimonial home due to severe conflict and alleged domestic violence, while the respondent remained in the property with a new partner and changed the locks.

The court considered the common law principles governing occupation rent where no order for exclusive possession exists, including the timing of the claim, duration of occupancy, inability of the non-resident spouse to realize equity, and equitable set-offs.

The evidence established that the applicant’s departure was effectively compelled and that the respondent had exclusive use of the property while delaying sale or buyout.

The court found it equitable to award occupation rent based on half of the fair market rental value.

Credits were to be applied for the respondent’s payments toward property taxes and the joint line of credit.

Following a spousal support variation proceeding, the court addressed competing claims for costs.

The moving party sought substantial costs relying on an offer to settle under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules, while the responding party sought partial costs based on disclosure delays and litigation conduct.

The court held that the moving party could not rely on the offer to settle because it was not properly signed under Rule 18(4) and the result obtained was not as favourable as the offer.

Considering divided success, disclosure issues, litigation conduct, and the responding party’s financial disadvantage, the court nevertheless awarded the moving party partial costs.