Cheryl Goldhart

The respondent brought a motion challenging the Superior Court's jurisdiction to hear the applicant's claim for corollary relief under the Divorce Act, given a separation agreement previously filed in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The respondent subsequently withdrew the motion but still sought an order for mediation and costs.

The court determined that the applicant was the successful party, as the court did have jurisdiction to hear the corollary relief application.

The court declined to reserve costs to the trial judge and ordered the respondent to pay costs of $11,000 to the applicant.

The parties separated after a lengthy marriage during which the respondent husband was the primary earner and the applicant wife was the primary caregiver.

Following a brief separation, the parties reconciled and signed a marriage contract granting the wife the matrimonial home and its contents in the event of a future separation.

The parties separated again, and the husband sought to set aside the contract on grounds of duress and unconscionability.

The court upheld the contract, finding no duress or inequality of bargaining power.

The court also determined equalization, imputed income to the wife, calculated the husband's income using a three-year average, ordered spousal support, and apportioned the adult child's educational expenses.

The respondent, Lorne Howard Albaum, brought a motion to vary an interim spousal support order, seeking to reduce his monthly payments from $65,625 to $24,340.

He asserted a catastrophic change in his income due to the COVID-19 pandemic and stock market impact, and challenged the applicant's (Donna Jodi Albaum) expenses and corporate income.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Lorne failed to meet the heavy onus required to vary an interim order, as the issues raised were largely already considered by the previous judge or existed at the time of the original order.

The court also noted Lorne's lack of updated expert evidence and inconsistencies in his claims of hardship, given his continued privileged lifestyle and delays in litigation.

The applicant appealed an arbitration award that granted summary judgment to the respondent, dismissing her claims to set aside two domestic contracts.

The applicant argued the contracts should be set aside due to financial non-disclosure, lack of understanding, and duress.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator made palpable and overriding errors of mixed fact and law by conflating the steps of the summary judgment test, assessing credibility on a conflicting written record without oral evidence, and failing to properly weigh the respondent's non-disclosure of a significant family trust.

The summary judgment was set aside and the matter was remitted to a new arbitrator for a full hearing.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of a traditional marriage.

The respondent, a high-income earner operating a mini-tender business through various corporations, argued his income was highly volatile and currently nil.

The court applied a cautious approach to income determination on an interim basis, accepting the respondent's expert's calculation of a three-year average income of $1.8 million, which accounted for necessary corporate retained earnings.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $65,625 per month based on the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, commencing February 1, 2021.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the respondent to reduce his spousal support obligations due to the catastrophic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on his employment as a pilot.

The court had previously granted an interim order reducing support and requiring the applicant to repay overpayments.

In this costs decision, the court found the respondent to be the successful party, as both the financial disclosure and support reduction issues were decided in his favour, despite not receiving the full extent of his requests.

Considering the parties' conduct, settlement offers (respondent made offers, applicant did not on the main issue), and the proportionality of legal fees, the court awarded the respondent $45,000.00 in costs, plus taxes and disbursements, to be paid in installments after the spousal support overpayments are repaid.

The moving party, an airline pilot, sought a temporary-temporary reduction in his spousal support obligations due to the catastrophic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the airline industry and his income.

The original support order stipulated that support was fixed and non-variable unless there was a catastrophic change in his employment circumstances.

The court found that the moving party established a strong prima facie case for a material change in circumstances, hardship, and urgency.

The court granted the motion, reducing the monthly spousal support obligation from $10,283.00 to $6,738.00, retroactive to October 1, 2020.

The applicant father brought a motion for equal decision-making and a 2/2/3 shared parenting schedule at his separate residence.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for sole decision-making and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court found that the status quo was an equal parenting arrangement under a previous consent order, and that it was in the children's best interests to maintain equal parenting time but in separate residences to reduce conflict.

The father's motion for equal decision-making and a graduated shared parenting schedule was granted.

The mother's cross-motion for exclusive possession was dismissed as unnecessary given the father's undertaking not to return to the home.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking production and answers to refusals related to the respondent husband's financial disclosure during marriage contract negotiations.

The wife argued that the husband's reliance on his professional advisors, including his lawyer, to prepare his financial disclosure constituted an implied waiver of solicitor-client privilege over his lawyer's file.

The court dismissed the wife's motion, holding that merely stating reliance on a lawyer to perform their job in preparing disclosure does not put the legal advice itself in issue, and therefore does not amount to an implied waiver of solicitor-client privilege, which is considered to be as close to absolute as possible.

The court determined the costs of two motions in a family law proceeding.

The respondent father was successful on a motion for the advancement of funds and was awarded costs of $22,967.05.

The respondent was unsuccessful on a motion to adjourn the trial, and the applicant mother was awarded costs of $7,631.38 for that motion.

The court ordered a set-off, resulting in a net payment of $15,335.67 by the applicant to the respondent.

The respondent mother brought a motion to vary an interim access order that required her to transport the parties' 19-month-old child from Windsor to Toronto for weekend access with the applicant father.

The mother argued that the child's age, winter driving conditions, and the child's familiarity with the father's home constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no material change in circumstances that would justify varying the interim order, and noted that the mother had unilaterally removed the child from Toronto to Windsor prior to the initial order.

Following an appeal decision regarding child and spousal support, the parties were directed to submit joint calculations of arrears.

As the parties failed to agree and submitted separate calculations, the Court of Appeal reviewed the submissions and adopted the appellant's calculations, fixing the total spousal and child support arrears owing by the respondent at $277,853.81 as of December 31, 2013.

The parties separated and initially shared a nesting arrangement in the matrimonial home.

Following the sale of the home, both parties brought motions regarding the parenting schedule, schooling, and child support.

The mother sought primary residence and interim sole custody, while the father sought to continue an alternating week schedule.

The court excluded surreptitious surveillance evidence obtained by the mother against the father.

Finding that the father's demanding schedule as a medical resident made him largely unavailable to parent the children without delegating to his extended family, the court ordered primary residence to the mother with the father having alternate weekends and Wednesday overnights.

The court also ordered the children to attend the school proposed by the mother and ordered the father to pay table child support.

The appellant wife appealed a trial judge's decision to retroactively vary a 2005 final support order under s. 17 of the Divorce Act.

The trial judge had eliminated substantial support arrears and ordered the wife to repay over $113,000 to the respondent husband, based on a finding that the husband's income had decreased prior to the 2005 order.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the trial judge erred in principle by relying on pre-order circumstances and effectively rewarding the husband for his failure to make financial disclosure in 2005.

Applying the S. (D.B.) and P. (L.M.) principles, the Court found the husband's subsequent income reduction constituted a material change, but limited the retroactive relief due to his delay and non-disclosure.

The Court reinstated the child support arrears for the daughter, terminated child support for the son as of December 2010, and terminated spousal support as of January 2012, relieving the wife of any repayment obligation.

In a family law proceeding following separation, the applicant sought several orders including severance of the issue of the validity of a marriage contract for determination at a preliminary trial, summary judgment for repayment of an alleged $200,000 loan, repayment of funds withdrawn from a joint line of credit, and permission to sell the matrimonial home without the respondent’s consent.

The respondent sought leave to amend his answer to claim spousal support, interim spousal support, disclosure relating to the applicant’s interest in an estate planning vehicle, and an order that proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home be held in trust.

The court held that the validity of the marriage contract should be severed and determined at a preliminary trial because doing so would likely narrow the issues and promote settlement without causing meaningful prejudice.

Summary judgment on the alleged loan and the request for immediate repayment of the line of credit withdrawal were dismissed.

The respondent was granted leave to amend his pleadings and was awarded interim spousal support despite the marriage contract, on a without‑prejudice basis pending determination of the contract’s validity.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking expanded temporary parenting time, including overnight access and one week of summer access, pending completion of a s. 30 custody and access assessment.

The mother opposed the motion, relying on evidence of the father’s ongoing anger issues and the emotional impact of the current access arrangements on one of the children.

The court held that the father had not established a material change in circumstances since the recent interim order governing access and noted that only five months had elapsed since the previous order.

Evidence indicated continued behavioural concerns and lack of insight into the father’s conduct, which raised concerns about the children’s well-being.

The court concluded that expanding access would not be in the children’s best interests at this time.

The applicant sought costs following a contested family law motion, requesting full recovery costs of $33,539 or alternatively partial recovery costs of $22,136.

The respondent argued that a clause in a Partial Interim Separation Agreement barred any costs award or, alternatively, that costs should be limited to a substantially lower amount.

The court held that the contractual clause requiring each party to pay their own legal and professional fees did not waive the applicant’s right to seek a judicial award of costs.

Finding the applicant to be the successful party and noting that an offer to settle engaged full recovery entitlement for part of the proceeding, the court reduced the claimed amounts due to excessive hourly rates, duplication of work, and unnecessary attendance by multiple counsel.

Costs were fixed on an all‑inclusive basis.

The mother brought a motion for interim sole custody, supervised access for the father, and an order for a parenting assessment.

The father cross-moved for unsupervised access and shared custody.

The court found a history of domestic violence and high conflict, with the father demonstrating an inability to control his anger and verbal abuse in front of the children.

The court granted the mother interim sole custody, ordered a parenting assessment by Dr. Butkowsky, and granted the father unsupervised access on weekdays but continued supervised access on Saturdays for one month while he enrolls in an anger management course.

The affidavit of the father's sister was struck for containing hearsay.

Following competing family law motions regarding interim custody, access, and child support, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant sought interim sole custody and higher child support, while the respondent sought access arrangements.

The court’s interim orders fell between the parties’ positions, resulting in divided success.

Considering the parties’ unreasonable litigation positions, their settlement offers, and the mixed outcome, the court determined that neither party should recover costs.

The parties separated and signed Minutes of Settlement regarding the family business.

The husband sold the business years later and refused to pay the wife her share, arguing her rights expired after four years under paragraph 5 of the Minutes.

The trial judge found the paragraph ambiguous, admitted parol evidence, and ruled in favour of the wife.

The husband appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the provision was ambiguous and her use of parol evidence to determine the parties' intentions.