Dana Cohen

The applicant father brought a contempt motion against the respondent mother for allegedly breaching a court order regarding extracurricular activities for their child.

The father claimed the mother refused to facilitate the child's participation in "Select Hockey" during her parenting time.

The court found that the order was not unequivocally breached, as there was ambiguity regarding the interplay between two prior orders (2017 Consent and 2020 Nakonechny order) concerning extracurricular activities and the role of a Parenting Coordinator.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding no deliberate and willful breach beyond a reasonable doubt, and stated it would have exercised its discretion to decline a contempt finding due to potential injustice and the father's true objective being enforcement rather than contempt.

The court ordered an urgent case conference and the immediate appointment of a Parenting Coordinator.

The applicant, Fiona Bagust-Homes, brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, seeking to impute an annual income of $200,000 to the respondent, Gregory Devine, based on his historical earnings.

The respondent, currently unemployed, argued the motion was premature, proposed a lower imputed income of $75,000, and contended the applicant had no need for support due to her received capital.

The court found the respondent intentionally unemployed and imputed an income of $200,000.

It ordered temporary child support based on a set-off of table amounts and temporary spousal support at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court also directed that support payments be made from the respondent's held capital and ordered him to maintain a life insurance policy as security.

The trial addressed equalization of net family property, retroactive spousal and child support, and Section 7 expenses following a 2014 separation.

The court imputed significant income to the respondent based on substantial, regular, untracked gifts from his mother, which were intended to replace his employment income.

Conversely, the court declined to impute income to the applicant from time-limited, tracked loans from her father that were repaid.

The respondent's claims for retroactive support and matrimonial home carrying costs were dismissed.

Equalization calculations were adjusted, rejecting a large alleged business loan from the respondent's mother but excluding Facebook shares as a gift.

Past Section 7 expenses were largely dismissed as a wash, but future post-secondary education costs were ordered to be split equally.

This is a costs endorsement following a ten-day family law trial.

The trial addressed decision-making responsibility and parenting schedules for two children, and the winding up of a family trust.

The respondent achieved substantial success on the primary issues of decision-making and residency for one child, and a shared parenting schedule for the other.

The applicant's conduct was deemed unreasonable, particularly her refusal to communicate and make settlement offers.

The court awarded the respondent 75% of his actual costs, totaling $78,768.00, finding the amount reasonable and proportionate given the respondent's success and the applicant's unreasonable behaviour.

The parties separated after a 23-year marriage and engaged in a high-conflict custody dispute over their two children, one of whom has severe special needs.

The applicant mother sought joint custody and an equal time-sharing schedule, while the respondent father sought sole decision-making authority and primary residence for the special needs child during the school week.

The court found that the mother was unable to co-parent effectively, communicate with professionals, or prioritize the children's needs over her animosity toward the father.

The court granted sole decision-making authority to the father, ordered primary residence with the father for the special needs child during the school week to ensure consistency, and ordered an equal time-sharing schedule for the younger child.

The father's request to wind up a family trust was dismissed without prejudice due to procedural issues.

This is a costs decision following supplementary submissions regarding section 7 child support expenses and costs of multiple motions.

The applicant mother had brought three motions commencing in November 2018, approximately 19 months after the parties settled most issues by Final Minutes of Settlement dated March 29, 2017.

The court found that the mother was unsuccessful on substantially all claims, with only a small credit for certain section 7 expenses.

The respondent father was awarded costs of $7,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements, enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office as an incident of support.

The mother was also ordered to pay $3,257.00 in net section 7 expenses to the father.

The applicant, Robert Robertson, brought a second motion to change his child and spousal support obligations and to rescind over $700,000 in arrears.

The respondent, Karen McKenzie, conceded to a termination of spousal support and an adjustment of child support due to her increased income, but opposed the rescission of arrears and sought to have the applicant declared a vexatious litigant.

The court found no material change in the applicant's circumstances since the last order, rejecting his claims of inability to earn imputed income or health issues.

While acknowledging the respondent's increased income as a material change, the court declined to rescind the applicant's arrears, citing his lack of transparency, unwillingness to voluntarily support his children, and history of litigation.

The court also declined to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant but imposed a requirement for leave before bringing future motions to change, to ensure fairness and efficient use of court resources.

The applicant mother brought three motions seeking to amend her pleadings, set aside a Final Consent Order from March 29, 2017, transfer the case to Superior Court, and obtain increased child support and retroactive section 7 expenses.

The respondent father opposed these motions.

The court dismissed most of the mother's claims, finding that the issues had been settled in the Final Order and that allowing amendments would cause unjust disadvantage to the father.

The court determined that prospective section 7 expenses from March 29, 2017 forward remained outstanding and required DivorceMate calculations to be prepared for final determination.

This family law trial addressed parenting arrangements, a proposed relocation of children to Brussels, child support, spousal support, the parties' separation/valuation date, and equalization payments.

The court denied the respondent's request to relocate the children, finding it not in their best interests to leave Toronto where they were settled and had strong bonds with both parents.

A shared parenting schedule was established.

The court imputed income to the respondent due to intentional underemployment and ordered prospective child and spousal support, but no retroactive support.

The separation date was fixed as February 26, 2017, and an equalization payment was ordered, with prejudgment interest accruing from the date of the final order.

The applicant mother and respondent father shared custody of their twin children.

The father sought retroactive child support and a proportionate sharing of daycare expenses, as well as the imputation of income to the mother who had left a high-paying job.

The court declined to impute income, finding the mother's intentional unemployment was required by the needs of the children and her health.

Applying the Contino framework and considering the father's lack of financial contribution prior to separation, the court denied retroactive support for 2011 and 2012, but ordered set-off child support payable by the mother for 2013.

The respondent mother brought a motion to change a final joint custody order seeking custody and primary residence of the child with her in Hamilton.

The court found a material change in circumstances since the prior order, including the child’s increased age, escalating parental conflict, and significant stress affecting the child’s well-being.

Evidence from professionals and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer indicated the child strongly preferred to reside with the mother and would benefit from the stability of that arrangement.

The court held that the child’s wishes carried considerable weight given her age and circumstances.

A temporary order was granted changing residence to the mother and permitting the child to attend school in Hamilton, with parenting time to the father.

The applicant wife sought interim spousal support, and the respondent husband moved to set aside an ex parte preservation order.

The parties were married in Iran, and the husband sponsored the wife to Canada.

The wife alleged the husband attempted to trap her in Iran to avoid paying a $540,000 Meher agreement and equalization.

The court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the Meher and equalization, and that the wife would suffer irreparable harm if the husband divested his assets.

The preservation order was continued with a minor variation.

The court also imputed an income of $200,000 to the husband based on his lifestyle and family financial support, ordering him to pay interim spousal support yielding $3,250 net monthly.

The father brought a motion for contempt alleging the mother failed to comply with a court order requiring their child to attend daycare daily.

The mother argued the daycare location was impractical and she was available to care for the child.

The court declined to alter the daycare requirement pending evidence addressing the mother's alleged alcohol issues, and adjourned the contempt motion.

The court also set the father's interim income for support purposes based on his 2010 Notice of Assessment, pending further documentation of his current consulting income.