Cory A. Gilmore

This family law trial involved five and a half years of bitter litigation between the self-represented applicant (Galina) and respondent (Robert) concerning child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, custody, and access.

The court found the applicant to be an unreliable and confrontational witness who intentionally interfered with the respondent's access to the children and engaged in malicious behavior, including public disparagement.

The respondent was found to be credible and cooperative.

The court made findings on income imputation for both parties, calculated retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, and determined section 7 expenses.

Spousal support was ordered to terminate in July 2020, taking into account significant overpayments by the respondent.

The court also established a parallel parenting regime for the youngest child, granting the respondent sole decision-making authority over education and extracurricular activities, and control over the child's passport.

The respondent, represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), brought a motion to set aside the corollary relief of a default divorce order obtained by the applicant.

The PGT argued that the respondent, who has a history of mental illness, lacked the capacity to instruct counsel or understand the implications of not responding to the original application.

The court considered the respondent's fluctuating mental health, the applicant's knowledge of her condition, and the need for procedural and substantive fairness under the Family Law Rules.

The court granted the motion to set aside the corollary relief, ordered the production of counselling records to determine the correct valuation date, but dismissed requests for a non-depletion order and an immediate increase in spousal support.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside a final default order in a family law proceeding.

The default order required the respondent to pay significant retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, as well as an equalization payment.

The respondent argued his failure to respond was due to depression and anxiety resulting from the marriage breakdown.

The court applied the test for setting aside a default judgment and found that while the respondent's excuse was thin, he had an arguable defence on the merits regarding income and child dependency.

The motion was granted, conditional upon the respondent paying $22,000 in costs thrown away and a $5,000 lump sum for support.

The respondent Anthony Novac and third-party respondents (collectively "Novac/Sonco") brought motions for a preservation order and security for costs, respectively, against the applicant Jennifer Ann Leitch.

These motions followed a prior judgment where Leitch was ordered to pay significant costs.

Anthony sought a preservation order for Leitch's assets, including the Caledon farm property, and alternatively, its transfer to him based on a trust claim.

Novac/Sonco sought security for costs and preservation of the farm and artwork.

Leitch opposed, wishing to sell the farm and arguing against priority for creditors and lack of grounds for a Mareva injunction.

The court dismissed Anthony's request for the farm's transfer but granted the preservation orders for the farm and artwork in Leitch's possession, finding that Leitch's financial circumstances and prior unreasonable conduct justified securing the substantial costs awards.

The applicant sought spousal support, property division, and a restraining order following the breakdown of her marriage to the respondent.

The respondent claimed the marriage was a sham entered into solely for immigration purposes and sought a divorce and unequal division of net family property.

The court found the marriage was not a sham, determined the date of separation to be March 23, 2013, and resolved various property disputes including the valuation of a business, foreign property, and a disputed bare trust over a home.

The court ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment and lump sum spousal support, and issued a non-communication order.

The applicant, Jennifer Ann Leitch, brought a motion for a declaration of conspiracy and damages, while the respondent, Anthony James Charles Novac, brought a cross-motion for a decrease in child and spousal support.

The applicant's motion was dismissed, and the respondent's motion was granted.

This ruling addresses the significant costs sought by the successful respondent and third-party respondents (Novac/Sonco) against the applicant.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, the complexity of the issues, the applicant's unreasonable litigation strategy, and the proportionality of the costs.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments for reducing costs based on the respondent's alleged misrepresentation of income or her limited means, emphasizing that the applicant, a litigation lawyer, understood the risks.

This endorsement from a case management conference addressed several procedural disputes in a family law matter.

The court clarified the scope of upcoming long motions, disallowing new heads of relief sought by the respondent that were not previously discussed or scheduled.

It permitted the applicant to include material related to costs of prior proceedings, distinguishing these from settlement offers for the current motion.

The court also ordered the respondent's former counsel, Andrew Chris, to attend the long motion, leaving the decision to call him as a witness to the motion judge.

Additionally, the court admonished the respondent's counsel for improper communication with the court and set strict guidelines for future interactions.

The applicant wife alleged that her former husband and his family (the third-party respondents) engaged in a complex civil conspiracy to hide his income and assets through corporate restructuring and family trusts, thereby defeating her claims for child and spousal support.

The third-party respondents brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the conspiracy claims, while the applicant brought a cross-motion for partial summary judgment.

The husband also brought a motion to retroactively reduce his interim support obligations, arguing his income had materially decreased.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the third-party respondents' motion, dismissing the conspiracy claims, finding that the corporate transactions were undertaken for legitimate tax and estate planning purposes, not to harm the applicant.

The court also granted the husband's motion to vary support, significantly reducing his child and spousal support obligations retroactively to January 1, 2017, based on a material change in his income.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion to dismiss the father's appeal of a temporary order that varied his access to supervised.

The father did not appear at the motion.

The court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the Notice of Appeal was deficient, there was unexplained delay in perfecting the appeal, the appeal lacked merit given the trial judge's findings, and the appeal was moot because a final order had since been issued in the protection proceeding.

The applicant, Lisa Rezai, proceeded with an uncontested trial against the respondent, Glen Gibbons, who failed to appear or provide adequate disclosure throughout the lengthy litigation.

The court granted sole custody and decision-making authority for the child to the applicant, ordered supervised access for the respondent due to his history of alcoholism, anger, and threatening behavior, and imputed an income of $500,000 per annum to the respondent for child and spousal support purposes.

The court also ordered significant retroactive support and section 7 expenses, an equalization payment from the matrimonial home proceeds, and full legal costs to the applicant due to the respondent's bad faith and uncooperative conduct.

The applicant's claim for a constructive trust was dismissed, but an equalization payment was awarded.

The applicant mother brought a motion to stay two orders granting the respondent father overnight access and police enforcement of that access, pending her appeal.

The court found the mother did not meet the test for a stay, noting her history of non-compliance with court orders and lack of a serious issue to be tried.

However, acting in the child's best interests, the court ordered a short transitional access schedule culminating in overnight access, while maintaining the police enforcement order.

Victor Peters, as Estate Trustee for Martin Peters and in his personal capacity, brought a motion for security for costs against Jacques Fiorentino, Estate Trustee for Rita Peters.

The motion was based on the applicant's non-residence in Ontario.

The applicant argued that the matter was an enforcement proceeding of an existing judgment and that security for costs was inappropriate.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion for security for costs, finding that it would not be just to require the applicant to pay security given the complex legal issues, the nature of the enforcement action, and the collateral attack argument against the judgment.

The applicant sought costs following a motion for interim spousal and child support and interim disbursements.

Although the respondent was successful on the motion, the court found that the respondent's conduct was unreasonable, including withholding critical information about an income analysis and making an unreasonable offer to settle.

The court awarded costs of $3,000 in favour of the applicant.

The plaintiff, Devlan Construction Ltd., sought costs after successfully obtaining summary judgment against the defendant, 2345171 Ontario Inc. carrying on business as Guelph Medical Imaging, for $105,599.74.

Devlan requested costs of $61,158.24 on a substantial indemnity basis or $50,965.19 on a partial indemnity scale.

Guelph Imaging proposed fixed costs of $30,000.

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the result, counsel experience, expected costs, amount claimed/recovered, complexity, importance of issues, and party conduct.

The court found that Guelph Imaging's arguments, though eventually withdrawn, required Devlan to provide detailed accounting.

The court fixed costs at $60,000.00 in favour of Devlan Construction Ltd.

The applicant sought to vary a Saskatchewan support order and vacate arrears through a provisional hearing in Ontario.

The court found the applicant credible, accepted his medical evidence limiting his ability to work, and determined his older children were no longer dependents.

The court vacated all arrears from January 1, 2015, to October 1, 2019, and found no ongoing support obligation for the youngest child due to the applicant's inability to pay.

This motion concerned interim spousal and child support and interim disbursements.

The parties resolved the interim disbursements issue by agreeing to a line of credit on their jointly owned home for the applicant's litigation costs.

The primary dispute revolved around the imputation of the respondent's income for support calculations.

The applicant sought support based on an imputed income of $350,000, while the respondent proposed $120,000.

The court imputed an income of $120,000 to the respondent, finding the applicant's higher figure speculative and not sufficiently grounded in evidence.

Temporary child and spousal support orders were made based on this imputed income, with the respondent also ordered to continue paying various third-party expenses for the home and the applicant's car.

No income was imputed to the applicant at this stage.

The applicant sought specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The respondent repudiated the agreement, citing a family tragedy and the inability of beneficial owners (his mother and brother) to approve the terms, as per a "Seller's Solicitor's Approval Condition." The court found that the respondent failed to exercise the solicitor's approval clause reasonably, honestly, and in good faith, as no legal advice was sought regarding the terms of the agreement or the beneficial ownership issue.

The court emphasized that moral blameworthiness or family dynamics do not factor into the test for exercising such a clause and that contractual terms cannot be expanded by surrounding circumstances.

Specific performance was awarded to the applicant, and the agreement was deemed valid.

The applicant moved to enforce an access review provision in a separation agreement, seeking to increase his overnight access to the child.

The respondent opposed and brought a cross-motion for dismissal, transfer of the file to Brampton, and a section 30 assessment.

The court granted the applicant's request for increased access, finding that the "review" test, not "material change" applied and that the increase was in the child's best interests.

The court also granted the respondent's request for a section 30 assessment but adjourned the file transfer request.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The respondent, Stephen Levine, brought a motion seeking an advance on equalization to be used as a credit towards his purchase of the applicant's cottage and office condominium properties.

The applicant, Annette Levine, opposed this, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction for partial summary judgment on equalization due to significant disputes regarding asset valuations, outstanding disclosure, and uncommenced business valuations.

The court, citing Zagdanski and Haroun, declined to order an advance on equalization due to the contested facts and incomplete financial information.

However, it adopted an alternative proposal, ordering Stephen Levine to pay 50% of the cottage's net sale price (less a $50,000 valuator retainer) to reduce a line of credit on the matrimonial home, and to pay the full $400,000 sale price of the office condominium directly to Annette Levine (less commissions), ensuring she received a corresponding benefit for his acquisition of the properties.

Following a family law trial where the applicant was largely successful on parenting and support issues, the applicant sought costs.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, noting the applicant's offers were reasonable and closer to the final result, while the respondent's position on support was untenable.

Despite divided success on the specific parenting schedule, the applicant's overall success was proportionally greater.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $143,763.78, representing a middle ground between partial and full indemnity, and ordered the respondent to pay the outstanding balance of the section 30 assessor's fees.