Claudia Falquez-Warkentin

Following the dismissal of two dependent's relief applications against an insolvent estate, the court determined the costs payable by the unsuccessful applicants.

The court allocated the estate's costs between the two applications.

Joanne Sebanc was ordered to pay $14,000 on a partial indemnity basis, recognizing her mixed success and limited ability to pay.

Roseanne, Daniel, and Natalie Sebanc were ordered to pay $30,000 on a substantial indemnity basis because they pursued baseless allegations of fraud and failed to accept a favourable offer to settle.

The applicant wife brought an urgent motion without notice for a non-dissipation order freezing the respondent husband's assets and for the release of trust funds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the request for a non-dissipation order, noting that most of the alleged deceptive financial conduct pre-dated a September 2019 settlement conference and there was no reasonable explanation for the delay in seeking relief.

The court set a timetable for the parties to file materials regarding the release of the trust funds, which will be determined in writing.

The applicant father sought to prevent the temporary relocation of the 22-month-old child to Italy with the respondent mother, and for temporary sole custody and an equal parenting schedule.

The respondent mother sought temporary sole custody and permission to relocate with the child to Italy for a new job opportunity.

The court denied the mother's request to relocate, finding it not in the child's best interests on an interim basis due to the potential disruption to the child's relationship with the father and the lack of compelling financial benefit.

The court ordered a progressive parenting schedule for the father, including overnights, and joint decision-making pending trial.

The respondent (mother) sought spousal support from the applicant (father) following their divorce.

The central issue was whether the Ontario Court of Justice had jurisdiction to make a spousal support order, which required determining whether the parties were still spouses when the mother filed her claim.

The applicant obtained a divorce judgment on October 20, 2017, but the divorce did not take effect until November 20, 2017 (31 days later).

The mother filed her spousal support claim on November 10, 2017, while the parties were still technically married.

The court held that the parties remained spouses until the divorce took effect and therefore the court had jurisdiction to hear the spousal support claim.

On a motion in a family proceeding, the moving party sought removal of opposing counsel based on a disqualifying conflict of interest.

A paralegal associated with opposing counsel had previously assisted the moving party while he was self-represented by preparing his answer, financial statement, and case conference brief, and had received confidential information about litigation strategy, finances, and family circumstances.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's conflict framework, the court held that the responding party and her counsel failed to show that formal policies or effective screening measures existed to make disclosure impossible or highly unlikely.

Undertakings from the paralegal were insufficient, particularly in a very small practice.

The motion was granted and counsel was removed as solicitor of record.