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.

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 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 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.

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.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a motion decision dismissing his request to strike portions of an application dealing with child support.

The application was brought after a French court had issued a final child support order concerning children now residing in Ontario.

The motion judge had concluded Ontario had jurisdiction to address child support and that Ontario was the most appropriate forum.

On the leave motion, the court considered conflicting authorities regarding whether Ontario courts may entertain an originating application for child support where a valid foreign order already exists.

Finding an apparent conflict between prior decisions concerning jurisdiction under s. 33 of the Family Law Act, the court held that the legal issue was unsettled and granted leave to appeal.