Carissima Mathen

This decision resolves financial and parenting issues between former partners Susannah Spencer Hutton and Kenneth Wakely, focusing on primary parenting, occupation rent, child support, fines, and costs.

The court awards primary parenting of the parties’ son to the applicant, orders occupation rent and lump sum child support to be paid from the sale of the jointly owned home, and imposes fines and costs on the respondent for non-compliance with court orders.

This decision addresses high-conflict post-divorce parenting, decision-making, and child support between Vivi Hatzis (aka Paraskevie Zevgolis) and George Hatzis.

The court maintains the existing 2-2-5-5 parenting schedule, divides major decision-making responsibilities, and sets out a detailed protocol for communication, travel, and FaceTime.

The court declines to follow the Office of the Children’s Lawyer’s recommendation to reduce the father’s parenting time, finding insufficient evidence to warrant a change.

The order includes detailed directions for holidays, travel, and child support, and provides for cost submissions.

This costs award follows the dismissal of a constitutional challenge to provisions of the Family Law Act and Divorce Act.

The court considered the parties' submissions on costs, the novelty and importance of the issues, and the proportionality of the costs sought.

The court declined to order full indemnity costs as requested by the respondent, instead awarding $25,000, finding this amount reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

This decision resolves high-conflict parenting, decision-making, and relocation issues between Aslam Patel and Rabiya Patel.

The court finds that the children’s best interests are served by residing primarily with Rabiya, who is granted sole decision-making authority.

Aslam’s claims of parental alienation are rejected.

The court orders a restricted, reviewable parenting schedule for Aslam, a no-contact order in lieu of a restraining order, and permits Rabiya’s relocation to Pickering.

Extensive evidentiary rulings are made regarding affidavits, exhibits, and recordings.

This decision addresses a motion by Lan Ling to be added as a party to ongoing family law proceedings between Wentong (Wendy) Liu and her spouse, Yilan Yuan.

Lan, the mother of Yuan, sought to consolidate her civil trust claim with the family law application, arguing that certain assets held by Yuan were in trust for her and her husband, Ming.

The court granted consolidation of the civil and family proceedings, permitted Lan to pursue trust claims over specified assets, and required her to provide financial disclosure.

The court declined to allow Lan to act as litigation guardian for Ming due to insufficient evidence of his incapacity and a potential conflict of interest.

Costs were ordered to be borne by each party.

The applicant sought an order for the sale of the matrimonial home, an interim disbursement or advance on equalization, preservation and non-depletion orders, and costs.

The court found that only the interim disbursement/advance issue was properly before the court, but issued an order for the sale of the matrimonial home by agreement.

The applicant did not meet the burden for an interim disbursement or advance.

The respondent was awarded partial costs.

The applicant, Panagiotis Korogonas, sought to vary a temporary, without prejudice child support order (the "Shore Order") so that either the respondent, Samantha Iorio, would pay him child support or neither party would pay.

The court applied the test from Gilkinson v. Nichols, 2023 ONSC 1504, and found that the applicant had not established a prima facie case for a material change in circumstances or that the current arrangement was incongruous or absurd.

The motion was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs to the respondent.

The court granted the applicant's motion to strike the respondent's pleadings under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules due to repeated breaches of court orders, failure to pay costs, and ongoing inappropriate conduct.

The respondent was precluded from participating further in the proceedings, and the matter was set down for an uncontested trial.

The court found the respondent's allegations of judicial bias to be without merit and determined that all lesser remedies had been exhausted.

This decision resolves a high-conflict family law dispute between Harry James Clarke and Melissa Joy Denyes regarding parenting time, decision-making, relocation, child support, section 7 expenses, spousal support, and post-separation adjustments for their two children, one of whom has special needs.

The court dismisses the respondent's request to relocate with the children to Nova Scotia, orders equal parenting time on a 2-2-5-5 schedule, and grants the applicant sole decision-making responsibility.

Child support is set based on the parties' incomes, and section 7 expenses are to be shared equally.

The respondent's claims for spousal support and post-separation adjustments are dismissed, while the applicant is awarded certain retroactive section 7 expenses and post-separation adjustments.

The court imposes additional compliance measures due to the respondent's litigation conduct.

The court considered a motion for summary judgment by Payam Bozorgi, who was added as a party to Shabnam Shokoufimoghiman’s family law application against her former spouse, Amir Ebrahim Bozorgi.

Payam sought to dismiss the claims against him and to be removed as a party.

The court found there was no genuine issue for trial regarding Shabnam’s trust claims against Payam, but there was a genuine issue for trial on the fraudulent conveyance claim.

Payam’s request to be removed as a party was denied, and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

The court granted the respondent's motion to set aside a final order in a family law matter due to improper service.

The decision reviews the requirements for service under the Family Law Rules and Rules of Civil Procedure, and finds that the applicant did not prove the respondent was properly served at his father's address in Ontario.

The court also addresses the relevance of actual notice, the sequencing of jurisdictional challenges, and the criteria for setting aside a default order.

Costs were reserved to the trial judge.

This decision concerns a motion to change a 2016 final order regarding spousal and child support, and section 7 expenses, between former spouses Pasquale Giovanni Mancuso and Silvana Logullo.

Both parties, self-represented, sought various forms of retroactive and ongoing support, and each alleged the other had failed to disclose income.

The court declined to impute income to either party, found Mr. Mancuso owed retroactive child support and section 7 expenses (with interest), and ordered ongoing spousal support until 2031 per the original formula.

The court found both parties contributed to communication breakdowns but did not act in bad faith, and ordered each to bear their own costs.

This decision addresses a high-conflict parenting dispute between Isabel Jarosz and Christopher Denda regarding attendance at their daughter’s extracurricular activities.

The court interprets a prior order and considers the best interests of the child, ultimately ruling that each parent should not attend routine extracurricular activities during the other’s parenting time, but both may attend significant events.

The court also addresses concerns about surreptitious recordings and awards partial costs to the successful party.

The Applicant, Pierrette Donaghy, brought a motion seeking findings of breach and various enforcement and preservation remedies against the Respondent, Michael Donaghy, in a long-running family law proceeding.

The Court found the Respondent in breach of multiple court orders regarding disclosure and support, granted preservation orders over his assets, and set deadlines for compliance, including the production of business valuation and income determination reports.

The Court declined to increase the daily penalty for non-compliance but allowed the Applicant to seek to strike the Respondent’s pleadings if he failed to comply by the set date.

Costs were awarded to the Applicant.

The applicant, Jennifer Lynn Hodgson, brought an emergency ex parte motion seeking a restraining order and related relief against the respondent, Shane Jason Hodgson, in the context of family law proceedings.

The court granted a temporary no contact order under section 28 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, finding that the applicant had established urgency and risk of serious consequences if notice were given.

The court declined to grant a restraining order at this stage, reserving the issue for a later hearing.

The order included specific restrictions on contact and proximity, and set a return date for further review.

The applicant, Valentina Ortega Alvarez, brought an urgent motion without notice seeking a no-contact order and related relief against the respondent, William H. Duong, due to concerns for the safety of herself and their children following an escalation in the respondent's abusive and volatile behaviour.

The court granted a temporary no-contact order under section 28 of the Children's Law Reform Act, finding immediate danger to the children but declined to issue a restraining order, holding that less restrictive measures were appropriate at this stage.

The decision addresses whether Joselene Yacoub’s lawyers, Harold Niman and Hayley Cairns, should be removed due to an alleged conflict of interest arising from Niman’s brief 2018 consultation with the respondent, Louis Serafini Jr., regarding his divorce from a former spouse.

The court finds that while a solicitor-client relationship existed, the matters were not sufficiently related and no relevant confidential information was imparted.

The motion to remove counsel is dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking various orders, including final parenting, travel documents, and permission to travel with the children.

The respondent father, who appeared self-represented and filed no materials, did not object to the parenting or travel requests, provided he was not ordered to pay costs.

The court granted the applicant's requests for travel permission and the ability to obtain travel documents for the children without the respondent's consent.

It also continued a previous temporary order granting the applicant sole parenting and decision-making responsibility.

Other requests were dismissed without prejudice, and the respondent was ordered to pay $750 in costs to the applicant.

The Applicant brought a motion seeking sole decision-making, primary parenting, leave to travel with the children without the Respondent's consent, and retroactive child support based on an imputed income.

The court granted the Applicant sole decision-making, primary parenting, and the ability to travel without the Respondent's consent, finding these to be in the children's best interests based on uncontested evidence and an OCL report.

However, the request for child support based on an imputed income of $60,000 was dismissed without prejudice due to insufficient evidence, as the mother's sworn belief alone was not a sufficient basis for imputation.

The Respondent was ordered to pay costs to the Applicant.