Camélia Amiri

The moving party husband sought a stay of a lower court order requiring him to produce an updated financial statement, pending the disposition of his appeal.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the husband failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as compliance with the order would not constitute attornment to the court's jurisdiction.

The balance of convenience favoured the wife, given the fundamental obligation for financial disclosure in family law proceedings.

The husband was ordered to comply with the production order and pay costs.

The appellant sought to overturn a motion judge's finding that a settlement was reached in mediation and the subsequent granting of partial summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error or error in principle.

The appellate court agreed that substantial evidence supported the existence of a settlement agreement, despite the absence of written minutes, and upheld the appropriateness of partial summary judgment given the limited remaining issues.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Applicant sought to strike the Respondent's pleadings and vest title in two Ontario properties due to the Respondent's persistent non-compliance with numerous court orders regarding financial disclosure, support payments, and asset preservation.

The Respondent had failed to provide full disclosure of his overseas business interests and had accumulated significant arrears.

The court granted the vesting order to protect the matrimonial home from foreclosure and conditionally struck the Respondent's pleadings, allowing for limited participation on parenting issues if financial compliance was not met within 90 days.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

This is a costs endorsement following a come-back motion concerning ex parte injunctions.

The applicant successfully continued a Family Law Act preservation order against her former spouse but failed to continue a Mareva order against his family members and corporate affiliates.

The court determined costs based on divided success, reasonableness of conduct, and settlement offers, ultimately awarding the applicant costs against the former spouse and the other respondents costs against the applicant, with deferred payment terms for the applicant.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Czutrin J. dated September 3, 2021.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs fixed at $2,500 all inclusive.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay $15,000 in costs to the responding parties.

The applicant brought a motion to continue an ex parte FLA Preservation Order against her former spouse and a Mareva Order against his family members and corporate affiliates.

The applicant alleged that the respondent spouse had dissipated tens of millions of dollars from the sale of a business to defeat her equalization claim.

The court found a serious issue to be tried and continued the FLA Preservation Order against the respondent spouse to prevent further depletion of his remaining assets.

However, the court dissolved the Mareva Order against the family members and affiliates, finding no demonstrated risk that they would remove or dissipate the assets from the jurisdiction.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal in respect to three of the four issues raised in the notice of motion.

Costs of the motion for leave to appeal were fixed at $6,750, payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The Applicant brought a motion for disclosure of the Respondent's solicitor's file and for responses to questions refused during questioning.

The Respondent brought a cross-motion for disclosure of the Applicant's solicitor's file.

The Applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement, alleging the Respondent materially misrepresented his financial circumstances by failing to disclose a significant business sale.

The court found that the Respondent had waived solicitor-client privilege by putting his state of mind at issue in his defence against allegations of intentional torts.

The court also determined that settlement privilege did not apply to the Respondent's settlement discussions due to the public interest in ensuring full and frank disclosure in cases of alleged misrepresentation.

The Applicant's motion was granted, and the Respondent's cross-motion was dismissed.

The applicant, a former spouse, sought preservation and non-depletion orders under sections 12 and 40 of the Family Law Act, respectively, to restrain the respondent from dissipating assets.

These orders were contingent on setting aside a comprehensive separation agreement due to alleged misrepresentation and non-disclosure.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant lacked standing for a section 40 order as a divorced spouse and failed to meet the stringent Mareva injunction test, which was deemed applicable given the contingent nature of her claims for equalization and support.

The court found no strong prima facie case to set aside the agreement, no evidence of asset dissipation to avoid judgment, and no undertaking as to damages.