Unlock 7 more sections of this judge’s background. Start your 7-day free trial.
11 total
Motion to remove opposing counsel for conflict of interest dismissed due to adequate ethical wall.
The moving party husband sought an order to remove the responding party wife's solicitor of record on the basis of a conflict of interest arising from a prior consultation with another lawyer at the same firm.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the ethical wall erected by the law firm was sufficient to rebut the presumption that confidential information would be shared, and that the risk of prejudice was merely speculative.
Interim spousal support granted at SSAG high end based on pre-separation income.
The respondent husband brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of a seven-year cohabitation and four-year marriage.
The applicant wife, a physician who had recently completed a medical fellowship and commenced a substantially higher-paying position, opposed the motion, disputing the respondent's compensatory and non-compensatory claims and arguing that no income increase should be shared.
The court found a prima facie entitlement to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, but declined to base quantum on the applicant's post-separation income increase due to the conflicting evidence regarding the respondent's contributions.
The court fixed the applicant's income at $85,490 for support purposes based on a five-year average, declined to impute income to the respondent, and ordered interim spousal support at the high end of the SSAG range at $2,254 per month.
Interim disbursements of $25,000 granted for long motion; trial funding request dismissed without prejudice.
The respondent wife brought a motion for interim disbursements under r. 24(25) of the Family Law Rules to fund legal representation for a long motion and trial in a complex family law proceeding involving division of net family property and spousal support.
The parties had a decades-long marriage with business interests spanning Canada and Taiwan, and the case was complicated by the misappropriation of approximately $5.5 million in Taiwan land sale proceeds by an adult child.
The court granted $25,000 for the long motion, finding the respondent had demonstrated the disbursements were necessary and reasonable, that she was unable to fund the fees herself, and that her claims were meritorious.
The request for $220,000 for trial fees was dismissed without prejudice as the trial scope depended on the outcome of the long motion.
Temporary step-up parenting schedule ordered, including overnights, despite restrictive separation agreement signed under alleged duress.
The applicant brought a motion for increased temporary parenting time, including overnights, with the parties' two children.
The respondent opposed overnight visits for the younger child, citing the applicant's living arrangements, and relied on a separation agreement that restricted the applicant's parenting time.
The court found the separation agreement was likely signed under duress and disregarded its parenting provisions under s. 56(1) of the Family Law Act.
The court ordered a step-up parenting schedule for the younger child, leading to alternate weekend overnights, and restored the older child's previous overnight schedule, finding it in the children's best interests to maximize contact with the applicant.
Monetary penalties imposed on father for chronic obstruction of reunification therapy.
The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce a consent order requiring the respondent father to comply with a court-ordered therapeutic reunification process and to provide photographs and weekly updates about the children.
Over 5.5 years of litigation, multiple clinicians found the father obstructed the children's relationship with the mother, while psychological assessments confirmed the mother posed no risk to the children.
The court found multiple breaches of the consent order, declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the non-complying father given his pattern of chronic non-compliance, and imposed monetary penalties under Rule 1(8)(a.1) of the Family Law Rules to incentivize future compliance with the therapeutic process.
Interim sale denied where unresolved family claims and children's stability outweighed sale.
The respondent husband moved for an interim order listing the jointly owned matrimonial home for sale and directing disbursement of sale proceeds.
The court applied the legal principles governing partition and sale of matrimonial homes, including the prima facie right of a joint tenant to sale and the need to avoid unfair prejudice to legitimate family law claims.
The applicant wife had unresolved claims for spousal support, equalization, and tort damages arising from alleged family violence, and the court found that sale proceeds would likely have to remain in trust.
The court also accepted that sale would negatively affect the children and the applicant wife, who was treated as a vulnerable spouse.
The motion for sale was dismissed, with costs presumptively payable to the successful resisting party.
Interim spousal support denied where entitlement unresolvable on conflicted written record.
The applicant husband brought a motion for interim spousal support following a 27-year marriage, claiming entitlement on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds.
The court found that the husband failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to spousal support, given extensive conflicting evidence regarding the roles each party played during the marriage, the husband's past and current income, and whether he experienced any economic hardship or decline in standard of living since separation.
The motion was dismissed, as the conflicted record could not support a finding of entitlement at the interim stage; the court noted that entitlement and quantum would need to be resolved at trial.
A secondary motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for disclosure non-compliance was resolved, with outstanding disclosure items to be provided within 14 days.
Motion to maintain children's private school enrolment granted; tuition deemed a reasonable section 7 expense.
The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary orders, including an order to enroll the parties' two children in their current private school for the upcoming year and requiring the respondent father to pay his proportionate share of the tuition.
The father opposed, arguing the children should attend public school due to long-term affordability concerns.
The court found the father failed to demonstrate compelling circumstances to justify disrupting the children's education pending a final decision.
The court held the tuition was a necessary and reasonable section 7 extraordinary expense and ordered the father to pay 75% of the cost based on the parties' 2024 incomes, subject to future reapportionment.
Court imputes $215,154 income to respondent from rental properties and orders temporary child and spousal support.
The applicant brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, seeking to impute an annual income of $390,028.78 to the respondent based on his rental properties in Toronto and Brazil.
The respondent argued his income was $93,376 and that he was already meeting the applicant's needs by providing rent-free accommodation and a monthly stipend.
The court imputed an income of $215,154 to the respondent based on his legal ownership of the properties, rejecting his claims of unwritten trust agreements with family members.
The court ordered the respondent to pay $1,822 per month in table child support, 60% of section 7 expenses, and $5,550 per month in temporary spousal support, with a $2,165 deduction while the applicant continues to live rent-free in his property.
Motion for advance equalization payment denied due to lack of certainty regarding ultimate entitlement.
The applicant brought a motion seeking the release of her remaining share of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home, an advance equalization payment of $250,000 from the respondent's share, and retroactive section 7 expenses.
The court granted the release of the applicant's share of the proceeds, finding no basis to preserve the funds under section 12 of the Family Law Act.
However, the court dismissed the request for an advance equalization payment, concluding there was insufficient certainty that the applicant would ultimately be entitled to an equalization payment of at least $250,000.
The claim for retroactive section 7 expenses was also dismissed as premature due to unresolved factual issues.
Interim relocation motion results in children remaining at current school to preserve shared parenting schedule.
The respondent mother brought an urgent motion to prevent the applicant father from relocating the parties' children to Markham and changing their school from Toronto to Markham pending a final determination of her motion to change.
The court found that the proposed move constituted a relocation under the Divorce Act, as the increased commuting distance would significantly impact the children's relationship with the mother.
Applying the best interests factors, the court ordered that the children continue attending their Toronto school to maintain stability and support the existing equal shared parenting schedule, but declined to prohibit the father from moving the children's residence to Markham during his parenting time.
The mother's request for a Voice of the Child Report was dismissed.
