Brahm D. Siegel

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision that dismissed his claim to set aside a separation agreement.

He argued that he was misled regarding the valuation of the matrimonial home during negotiations.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no deliberate misrepresentation and that the appellant had chosen not to obtain his own valuation to save time and money.

The appeal, along with a request for leave to appeal the costs order, was dismissed.

This family law trial addressed property equalization, specifically the treatment and payment of a Mahr (dowry) agreement, alleged spousal debts, and post-separation adjustments.

The court granted a divorce and ruled that the Mahr, a domestic contract for 356 Bahar Azadi gold coins, must be included in the Net Family Property (NFP) equalization and valued in Canadian dollars as of the separation date, not as specific performance of gold coins or at current value.

The court rejected one of the husband's alleged debts but accepted another, determined the value of the wife's car, and ordered shared liability for the husband's post-separation rent and the Okanagan property renovation costs.

The husband was also ordered to pay the wife 50% of the tenant's rent collected.

Ultimately, the wife was ordered to pay the husband a net sum of $3,800, and the husband was awarded $45,000 in costs due to the wife's unreasonable position on the Mahr issue.

The applicant, a maternal grandmother, brought a motion seeking interim access to her grandchildren, mandatory disclosure of their medical and educational information, and the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The children's parents (respondents) opposed the motion, characterizing the grandmother's past relationship with the children as toxic.

Applying the newly amended "best interests of the child" definition under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court dismissed the applicant's motion.

The court found that forcing contact was not in the children's best interests at that time, citing the high level of conflict between the parties, the applicant's mixed motivations, the unified opposition from the extended family, allegations of family violence, and the children's expressed views.

The decision emphasized the deference owed to parental decisions regarding child contact unless overriding them is clearly required by the child's best interests.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an order that the children attend a new school in her catchment area.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion for the children to remain at their current school.

The court reviewed the principles for school placement and found that the evidence did not establish that one school was clearly better than the other.

Emphasizing the children's best interests and the need for stability, the court ordered that the children remain at their current school, as there was no good reason to disrupt their established educational environment.

The applicant, maternal grandmother, sought monthly weekend unsupervised access to her granddaughter (MP) after MP's mother (applicant's daughter) committed suicide.

The respondent father did not oppose access in principle but insisted it be brief and supervised due to concerns about the applicant's past criminal behaviour, alleged alcohol abuse, and unsafe living conditions.

The court applied the two-part test for grandparent access, considering deference to parental decisions and the child's best interests.

The court found no positive grandparent-grandchild relationship sufficient to override parental deference and that the father had not acted arbitrarily.

The court ordered supervised access twice monthly for two hours, with a provision for an extended Christmas visit and a mechanism for the applicant to seek variation for more extended overnight access after six visits.

The appellant appealed an arbitration award concerning spousal support, life insurance, and medical benefits.

The arbitrator had conducted a de novo review of the separation agreement's support provisions, leading to a step-down and eventual termination of spousal support.

The appellant argued the arbitrator erred in interpreting the scope of the review and in exercising discretion.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the arbitrator correctly interpreted the separation agreement as allowing a de novo review and did not make palpable and overriding errors in her discretionary decisions regarding support and costs.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Superior Court refusing to grant a stay of proceedings.

The Court of Appeal determined that the order refusing the stay was interlocutory in nature and therefore not appealable as of right.

The court distinguished the case from Hopkins v. Kay, where the refusal of a stay had the effect of finally determining the court's jurisdiction.

The appeal was quashed with costs fixed at $10,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion to withdraw its child protection application, which had been initiated due to severe parental conflict.

The court found that while the parents continued to have a highly conflicted relationship, the children were functioning well and there were no ongoing child protection concerns that warranted the society's continued involvement.

The court granted the motion to withdraw the application and issued a final order prohibiting the parents from making disparaging comments about each other in the presence of the children.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking temporary custody, permission to travel with children, temporary child and spousal support, orders regarding the matrimonial home (joint ownership, sale, exclusive possession), and interim disbursements.

The court granted temporary sole custody to the mother, with consultation on major decisions.

It allowed the mother to retain passports and travel with notice, finding the father's flight risk concerns speculative.

The court imputed an income of $225,000 per annum to the father for child support purposes, ordering $2,867 per month, commencing July 1, 2016, but declined retroactivity.

It ordered proportionate sharing of Toronto Montessori expenses for both children but denied other s.7 expenses (summer camp, drawing, piano lessons).

The parties were declared joint owners of the matrimonial home, but the conditional request for sale was withdrawn.

The mother was granted interim exclusive possession.

Spousal support was not ordered at this time, as the father's existing payments for the matrimonial home satisfied the mother's current need.

The father was ordered to pay $25,000 in interim disbursements and to retain a business valuator for his business interests and income, with a further $25,000 payment if he failed to comply.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion for increased retroactive and prospective spousal support, arguing the motion judge provided insufficient reasons and failed to apply the correct legal principles regarding post-separation income increases and her medical inability to work full-time.

The respondent cross-appealed the motion judge's refusal to award him costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding that the motion judge's reasons, while brief, were sufficient for appellate review and that there was no error in principle or material misapprehension of evidence in denying the support increase or in the exercise of discretion regarding costs.

The Applicant Husband, successful in a bifurcated trial upholding a marriage contract and denying further spousal support, sought costs of $95,000.

The Respondent Wife opposed, arguing Rule 18 did not apply and the costs were excessive, citing her financial position.

The court found the Husband's offers to settle did not meet Rule 18 criteria due to time limits and conditions, but considered them under Rule 24.

The Husband's position was deemed more reasonable, and the Wife's litigation conduct, including unreasonable settlement positions and unsupported claims, was discouraged.

The court awarded the Husband $80,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, noting the importance of upholding private agreements and discouraging attempts to set aside valid contracts.

The parties entered into a marriage contract shortly before their wedding.

Following a short and tumultuous marriage, the parties separated.

The wife sought to set aside the marriage contract under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act, alleging lack of financial disclosure, unconscionability, undue influence, duress, and misrepresentation.

The court found the contract valid and binding, noting the wife had independent legal advice and understood the agreement.

The court also applied the Miglin framework and upheld the spousal support provisions in the contract.

The husband was awarded occupation rent for the wife's use of his Florida condominium, which offset his remaining spousal support obligations.

Following a long motion regarding retroactive spousal support and child support, both parties sought costs.

The applicant claimed $29,700, while the respondent argued for costs based on bad faith or, alternatively, that each party should bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court reviewed the settlement offers, the divided success across the temporary and long motions, and the conduct of the parties.

Ultimately, the court ordered that no costs be awarded to either party.

This was a family law costs decision following a motion for temporary child and spousal support.

The court reviewed issue-by-issue success, the parties' offers to settle, the reasonableness of their litigation conduct, and the cost-effectiveness of the work performed under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

Allegations of bad faith were rejected because they depended on credibility findings that could not be made on conflicting affidavit evidence.

Although the respondent enjoyed marginally greater success on some substantive issues, the motion was reasonably necessary and the applicant was awarded fixed costs of $15,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

On a motion for temporary child and spousal support following a 16-year marriage with three children, the court determined the respondent's income for support purposes by considering law practice income, recurring parental gifts, RRSP withdrawals, and investment growth.

Applying the framework for unusual gifts, the court imputed an annual $50,000 parental gift as income because it had been regularly received for years and had supported the family's lifestyle.

The court also imputed the three-year average of RRSP withdrawals, excluding a very large one-time withdrawal used to complete a post-separation home purchase after promised funding failed.

The court declined to attribute unrealized or sheltered increases in investment value as income at this stage, and fixed the respondent's income at $403,044, resulting in temporary child support of $6,255 per month and spousal support of $6,696 per month.

The parties brought competing family law motions arising from the breakdown of a short marriage and disputing the validity of a marriage contract executed shortly before the wedding.

Issues included interim spousal support, disclosure, interim disbursements, exclusive possession of properties in Ontario and Florida, and whether the validity of the marriage contract should be determined separately from the remaining claims.

The court held that solicitor-client privilege had been waived concerning negotiations of the marriage contract and ordered production of former counsel’s files.

Interim spousal support of $6,000 per month was ordered retroactive to November 1, 2013 in accordance with the marriage contract, pending trial.

The court further ordered limited financial disclosure and directed that the issues of the contract’s validity and the valuation date be bifurcated and tried first.

Following a scheduled review of custody and access arrangements in a high‑conflict family law matter, the court considered updated evidence including affidavits, a clinical investigator’s report from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, and counselling records.

The court addressed preliminary issues including whether unpaid costs should bar a party from further participation and whether privileged interview notes obtained inadvertently should be returned and destroyed.

Assessing the best interests of the children, the court found significant evidence of parental alienation by the respondent affecting the youngest child’s perceptions of the applicant.

The court determined that maintaining the existing shared arrangement risked further damage to the child’s relationship with the applicant.

Custody was therefore confirmed with the applicant, with the youngest child ordered to primarily reside with the applicant and the respondent receiving alternate‑weekend access.

A high‑conflict custody dispute involving three children where the parents made mutual allegations of parental alienation and sexual abuse.

After extensive evidence, including testimony from police, child protection authorities, medical professionals, and an Office of the Children’s Lawyer clinical assist, the court found no deliberate sexual abuse and concluded the allegations were largely influenced by the responding parent.

The court determined that the views of the older children favouring residence with the applicant were independently formed, while the younger child’s views were likely influenced by the responding parent.

Applying the best interests test under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court awarded the applicant sole custody of all three children.

Access for the responding parent to the older children was to occur according to their wishes, while a structured transitional schedule was ordered for the younger child, with counselling and a future judicial review.

In a high-conflict family dispute involving competing motions for temporary custody of three children, the court was faced with extensive, untested affidavit evidence containing serious and conflicting allegations between the parents.

Investigations by police and child protection authorities did not result in charges or protection findings.

Given the imminence of a scheduled trial and the incomplete evidentiary record, the court declined to determine the temporary custody issues on the motion.

The court held that credibility assessments and a full evidentiary record were required and therefore left the issues for determination by the trial judge.

A motion concerning the relocation of a child from Toronto to London, Ontario.

The respondent mother sought permission to relocate with the child to accept a lateral employment transfer.

The applicant father opposed the relocation, arguing it would negatively impact the child's relationship with him and his educational progress.

The court considered the best interests of the child under the Children's Law Reform Act and the principles established in Gordon v. Goertz, ultimately denying the relocation request and finding that the child's interests were better served by remaining in Toronto with continued access to both parents.