Brigitta Tseitlin

The appellant challenged a decision declining to enforce a pre‑marriage agreement and ordering an equalization payment following the parties’ separation.

The application judge concluded the document did not qualify as a valid domestic agreement under the Family Law Act and, in any event, should be set aside under s. 56(4).

The agreement was found to be unclear, failing to identify the property to which it applied or address equalization, and the respondent did not understand its nature and consequences.

The Court of Appeal held these findings were open to the application judge on the evidentiary record and were supported by credibility assessments.

No error of law, principle, or palpable and overriding factual error was established.

The appellants filed notices of appeal in the Divisional Court from a Family Court order that granted sole decision-making responsibility, child support, and a $452,000 equalization payment, and declared a fraudulent conveyance.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court held that under section 19 of the Courts of Justice Act, it lacked jurisdiction because the equalization payment exceeded $50,000 and the order was made under both the federal Divorce Act and the provincial Family Law Act.

The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to the appellants proceeding in the Court of Appeal.

Following a family tragedy involving domestic violence, the applicant sought enforcement of a consent order regarding property ownership and distribution of sale proceeds.

The respondent brother claimed entitlement to reimbursement for post-order property expenses and carrying costs.

The court found the applicant was an unreliable witness but entitled to the majority of her claimed relief.

The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $45,532 after adjusting for legitimate expenses he incurred on the property.

Claims against the former lawyer were dismissed with costs awarded to him.

The Applicant wife and Respondent husband, who are married, brought cross-motions concerning the arrears on three mortgages registered on their jointly owned property.

Each party accused the other of misappropriating funds leading to the defaults.

The Applicant sought a preservation order for the property and interim uncharacterized support.

The Respondent sought reimbursement of funds from the Applicant.

The court found both parties responsible for the arrears.

The Applicant was ordered to return $50,000 she unilaterally withdrew from a joint account, and the Respondent was ordered to cover the remaining outstanding mortgage payments.

Future mortgage payments were to be jointly shared.

The Applicant's requests for a preservation order and interim support were dismissed without prejudice, as the record was insufficient for interim relief and the support issue required a case conference.

The Applicant's request for a full accounting from the Respondent regarding construction costs was granted.

Parties were ordered to bear their own costs due to divided success.

The parties brought a consent motion in an appeal from the Ontario Court of Justice, seeking to set aside the lower court's order and implement a new settlement.

The Superior Court dismissed the motion, holding that it would not exercise its appellate jurisdiction to set aside an order on consent without a showing of reversible error.

The court emphasized that any settlement on the merits of the original proceeding should be implemented in the court where that proceeding is being carried, after which the appeal could be dismissed.

This ruling addresses the costs of a six-day trial concerning a father's motion to change and a mother's response, primarily focused on spousal support and child support termination.

The court had previously dismissed the father's claims to set aside a consent order and terminate spousal support, and the mother's claim for student loan contributions, while ordering increased spousal support for the mother without a termination date.

The mother sought approximately $80,000 in costs, and the father argued for no costs or a maximum of $15,000.

The court found the mother to be the successful party on the most significant issue (spousal support) and awarded her $55,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The decision considered the importance and complexity of the issues, the parties' behaviour, and offers to settle, ultimately declining to impose increased costs for unreasonable behaviour.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for failure to comply with previous court orders regarding financial disclosure and support payments, and to add third parties to the proceeding.

The respondent argued that his mental health challenges prevented him from complying with the orders.

The court found the respondent's non-compliance to be willful, noting inconsistencies between his claimed incapacity and his actions, such as international travel.

However, as striking pleadings is a remedy of last resort, the court declined to strike the pleadings at this time, giving the respondent one final 30-day opportunity to comply.

The motion to add parties was adjourned.

The father brought a motion to change to terminate child and spousal support, and to set aside a prior consent order regarding child support termination dates.

The mother responded, seeking an increase in spousal support due to her permanent disability and the father's increased income, as well as a retroactive contribution to the adult children's student loans.

The court dismissed the father's request to set aside the consent order and his request to terminate spousal support, finding the mother remained permanently disabled and in need.

The court also dismissed the mother's claim for retroactive section 7 expenses due to lack of timely notice and insufficient evidence.

Ultimately, the court ordered an increase in ongoing spousal support to meet the mother's needs.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her claims to vary a divorce order, set aside a separation agreement for spousal support, and seek damages for alleged abuse.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that adequate assistance was provided to the self-represented appellant, credibility findings were owed deference, and excluded historical records were inadmissible hearsay.

The fresh evidence application was dismissed, and the lower court's costs award was affirmed.

The applicant wife sought temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, registered in the husband's sole name, after the husband was removed due to criminal charges and the husband's mother created a toxic living environment.

The husband's mother, a co-respondent, sought to vacate the exclusive possession order, claiming a beneficial interest and possessory rights to the home.

The court found the wife's evidence credible regarding the untenable living conditions and the children's distress.

The court determined that the husband's mother had no statutory right to possession under the Family Law Act and failed to establish a prima facie case for a constructive or resulting trust interest that would grant her possessory rights.

Considering the best interests of the children and the wife's lack of alternative accommodation, the court granted the wife temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The appellant appealed a trial decision upholding the validity of a marriage contract that waived property and spousal support rights, and awarding a $40,000 lump sum for spousal support.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the marriage contract was valid, noting the appellant chose not to obtain independent legal advice despite being warned by a paralegal.

However, the Court found the trial judge erred in calculating the quantum of spousal support by failing to consider imputing income to the respondent from his $5 million real estate holdings.

The appeal was allowed in part and the matter remitted to the Superior Court for a focused hearing on imputing income.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion requesting the respondent father submit to drug testing and that his access be suspended pending a negative result, citing erratic behaviour and allegations of cocaine use.

The father denied the allegations and provided a rapid drug screen, which the mother argued was insufficient.

The court ordered the father to undergo a panel urine and hair follicle test through a certified facility to ensure reliability.

The court also ordered that the father's access continue but be strictly supervised pending negative test results, finding the concerns about drug use constituted a material change in circumstances.

The appellant appealed an order requiring him to pay interim spousal support.

The original motion was brought solely to seek the sale of the matrimonial home, and neither party had requested interim spousal support in their motion materials.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge committed an error of law by ordering interim spousal support without providing the parties notice or an opportunity to make submissions on the issue.

The provision ordering spousal support was struck.

The applicant mother sought to vary child support and special expenses for the parties' son, SA, based on a material change in circumstances since their 2009 Separation Agreement.

The respondent father disputed the extent of his obligations and sought proportional sharing of private school expenses.

The court found a material change in circumstances but declined to vary the basic child support amount of $810 per month, leaving income determination for trial due to the father's opaque financial disclosure.

The court ordered the parties to share SA's private school expenses proportionally (mother 47%, father 58%) from October 1, 2016, based on their respective incomes of $80,000 and $91,500.

Claims for other extracurricular activities not defined as special or extraordinary expenses in the Agreement or Guidelines were dismissed.

The mother and the Chief of Police brought motions to change a final custody order that granted the father sole custody of two teenage sons and required police enforcement to compel the sons to attend a reunification program.

The sons, aged 16 and 18, had consistently refused contact with the father and actively evaded police enforcement.

The court found a material change in circumstances, removed the police enforcement clause, and rescinded the custody order entirely, concluding that it was impossible to enforce and no longer in the children's best interests.

No new custody order was made, leaving the sons to determine their own residential and contact arrangements.

The children and the Chief of Police were represented by separate counsel on the motions.

This costs endorsement followed a prior family law ruling concerning support issues.

Although the underlying motion resulted in mixed success, the court found the respondent was largely successful on the principal issue relating to income determination for support purposes.

The court held that the applicant should reasonably have accepted the respondent’s offer to settle, which would have provided greater overall financial benefit and avoided further litigation costs.

Considering the Family Law Rules and the parties’ financial circumstances, the court exercised its discretion to award costs approaching substantial indemnity but reduced the amount because the respondent was not wholly successful.

Costs of $21,893.84, including partial reimbursement of an expert report, were ordered payable within 30 days.

On competing family law motions, the parties sought orders concerning income imputation, child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, and financial restraints.

The court considered evidence regarding the respondent’s business income, rental income, and debt levels, including an expert financial analysis report, and rejected the applicant’s argument that significant undisclosed cash income should be attributed.

The court accepted the expert analysis and imputed annual income to the respondent of $26,000 for child support purposes, while declining to impute income to the applicant due to her primary caregiving responsibilities for a child with significant developmental needs, though noting she retained some earning capacity.

Child support was fixed at the Guideline table amount based on the respondent’s income, modest spousal support was ordered, and the respondent was required to temporarily continue vehicle-related payments.

Additional orders addressed section 7 expense sharing, release of trust funds to the respondent, and a non‑dissipation order restraining the applicant from further encumbering equity in her property pending resolution of equalization.

The plaintiffs, creditors of the bankrupt defendant, brought an action to set aside the conveyances of multiple real properties as fraudulent.

The defendant had transferred the properties to related individuals and shell corporations for nominal consideration shortly after defaulting on a business loan.

The court found that the defendant engaged in a pattern of dishonest conduct, including forging documents and manipulating trust declarations, to shield her assets from creditors.

Applying the balance of probabilities standard, the court held that the conveyances were fraudulent and void under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The properties were ordered to be sold with proceeds distributed to the plaintiffs and the bankruptcy trustee.

The father appealed an order finding that the Ontario court had jurisdiction to hear the mother's application for child support.

The parents previously lived in France, where a French court made a custody, access, and child support order that contemplated the mother's relocation to Canada.

The mother subsequently moved to Ontario with the children and applied to change the child support and custody provisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that because the children are ordinarily resident in Ontario and have an independent legal right to support under the Family Law Act, the child support claim should be determined on its merits in Ontario.

The moving party sought costs following a successful motion for leave to appeal a decision of a motions judge to the Divisional Court.

Although the moving party was presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, the court considered that the ultimate value of the leave motion depended on the outcome of the forthcoming appeal.

The court noted that if the appeal were successful, costs of both the leave motion and the appeal would logically follow.

However, if the appeal were unsuccessful, the leave motion might ultimately prove unnecessary.

The court exercised its discretion to defer determination of costs until the appeal is decided.