Carissima Mathen

In this family law motion, the respondent sought an order for partition and sale of a property held as a tenancy in common with the applicant.

The parties were former cohabitants who never married and disputed the length of cohabitation and date of separation.

The respondent sought to sell the investment property, citing loss of trust and alleged mismanagement by the applicant.

The applicant opposed the sale, arguing it would cause financial hardship and negatively affect the best interests of her 12-year-old daughter.

The court found the respondent had a prima facie right to seek sale under the Partition Act and that the applicant had not established malice, vexatiousness, or oppression.

However, the court imposed a three-month delay before listing to protect the child's stability and well-being.

The court also ordered that net proceeds be held in trust pending further court order.

The applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement dated January 14, 2020, on two alternative grounds: under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act due to non-disclosure of assets, lack of understanding of the agreement's nature or consequences, or unconscionability due to lack of independent legal advice; or alternatively, that the parties reconciled for more than ninety days after signing, rendering the agreement void.

The court rejected all arguments and dismissed the motion, finding the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof on a balance of probabilities.

In a family law matter involving equalization of net family property, spousal support, child support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, the applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for persistent non-compliance with multiple court orders and to determine the amount of penalty owing under a prior endorsement.

The respondent, who relocated to Florida and failed to provide complete financial disclosure despite numerous opportunities and court orders, was found to be in continued breach of disclosure obligations.

The court struck the respondent's pleadings, finding a consistent pattern of non-compliance and disregard for court process, and ordered the respondent to pay a penalty of $399,000 for non-compliance with the disclosure order.

The matter will proceed to an uncontested trial.

This decision resolves a long motion in a family law dispute between Morgan MacDougall-Milne and Leigh Alexander Smith.

The respondent father sought medical disclosure and a parenting assessment of the applicant mother, alleging she suffered from dementia.

The court found no evidence supporting the claim of dementia and declined to order medical disclosure or a section 30 assessment.

The court granted the applicant’s requests to dispense with the respondent’s consent for their daughter’s passport, travel to Las Vegas, and enrollment in French Immersion, and ordered the release of certain records based on prior undertakings.

Full indemnity costs were awarded to the applicant.

The applicant in a family law proceeding brought a motion for pre-trial questioning and disclosure from three non-party witnesses: her former doctor and two former friends.

The applicant alleged the respondent used his significant wealth to unduly influence the witnesses.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant failed to establish that it would be unfair to proceed to trial without the requested orders under Rules 19(11) and 20(5) of the Family Law Rules.

The court noted that the rules do not provide a right to cross-examine witnesses before trial simply to test credibility.

This decision concerns an interjurisdictional support variation application under the Divorce Act.

The applicant, James Longmire, sought to terminate his Ontario child support order and rescind arrears, arguing that his daughter K.S. had been living with him in Nova Scotia since 2019.

The court found that K.S. ceased to be a dependent child as of April 19, 2023, and terminated James’s child support obligation from that date.

However, the court dismissed James’s request to rescind arrears, finding insufficient evidence of hardship and that the legal framework for rescission was not met.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary parenting, child and spousal support, equalization, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, life insurance, and costs.

The court found the respondent's behaviour troubling, imputed income for child support, granted arrears and retroactive support, and ordered exclusive possession of the home and life insurance.

The applicant was also granted the right to seek spousal support in the future, and the respondent was ordered to pay an equalization amount.

Payment of certain amounts was deferred until the sale of the home.

The court considered a motion by Sandra Couto seeking sanctions against Jason Carvalho for failing to comply with a financial disclosure order in ongoing family law litigation.

The court found that Jason had not complied with the order, particularly in failing to provide third-party authorizations and certain financial information.

Jason was given a final 15-day period to comply, after which Sandra may move to strike his pleadings.

The court declined to immediately strike pleadings or bar Jason from further relief, recognizing his self-represented status and confusion, but emphasized the importance of compliance with disclosure orders.

This decision resolves a family law dispute between Michelle Smith and Kelburn Smith regarding equalization of net family property, valuation of Jamaican properties and their contents, payment of child support arrears, life insurance to secure child support, a claim for personal items, and costs.

The court orders equalization, ongoing and arrears child support, and partial life insurance security, but dismisses the claim for personal effects and orders each party to bear their own costs.

The court considered an urgent motion by Valerie Marinovic for the sale of the matrimonial home and exclusive possession pending sale.

The court ordered the home to be listed for sale, Valerie to have exclusive possession until sale, and costs to Valerie.

Daniel Marinovic’s requests to delay the sale, return to the home, and require a settlement proposal were denied.

The court found Daniel’s opposition to the sale unreasonable and that exclusive possession for Valerie was in the children’s best interests.

The applicant, Seyedali Salar, sought an order for the sale of the matrimonial home and exclusive possession in the interim.

The respondent, Mahnaz Salari, did not object to the sale but requested $2 million to purchase a new home, interim spousal support, and exclusive possession.

The court found that spousal support was not properly before it on this motion and granted the applicant’s motion in part, allowing the sale of the home, granting exclusive possession to the applicant in 45 days, and ordering that the proceeds be held in trust.

The respondent was awarded a $30,000 uncharacterized payment.

The decision reviews the relevant provisions of the Family Law Act and the Family Law Rules, and applies recent case law on the sale and possession of matrimonial homes.

This costs endorsement follows a family law trial where the applicant father successfully opposed the respondent mother's relocation request and secured shared parenting and sole decision-making.

The applicant sought costs of approximately $577,000, alleging the respondent acted unreasonably and in bad faith throughout the six-year litigation.

The respondent sought $120,000 in costs, claiming she had achieved substantial success.

The court found that the respondent behaved unreasonably but not in bad faith, and had lost on almost every major issue.

Ultimately, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $400,000 in costs.

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.