Dani Z. Frodis

The respondent wife brought a motion seeking an order requiring the applicant husband to repay $228,099 he withdrew from their joint line of credit, alleging he breached a November 2023 agreement between counsel.

She also sought a broader preservation order over all of his assets to secure her equalization and support claims, as well as potential liability in a civil action brought by her parents.

The court found that a binding agreement existed prohibiting the husband from accessing the joint line of credit and ordered him to repay the funds with interest.

However, the court dismissed the request for a broader preservation order, finding that the equity in the matrimonial home and the repayment of the line of credit provided sufficient security for the wife's claims.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a temporary family law order of a Superior Court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party.

The endorsement is brief and contains no substantive analysis of the leave criteria.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court decision dated July 21, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay inclusive costs of $5,000 to the responding party within thirty days.

The applicants, three siblings, sought compensation for their claimed interest in a townhouse property (Haig property) purchased by the respondents.

The applicants alleged a verbal agreement to invest equally in the property with the respondents, contributing to downpayment loans, mortgage payments, and carrying costs.

The respondents denied any such agreement, claiming the applicants were tenants paying below-market rent.

The court found a joint investment agreement existed based on extensive evidence including expense tracking spreadsheets, e-transfer records, and testimony.

The court awarded each applicant $155,000 representing their one-fifth interest in the net sale proceeds.

Additionally, the applicant Kiran was awarded non-compensatory spousal support based on need and her chronic medical condition, with retroactive support from October 2021 and ongoing monthly support until September 2032.

The Applicant sought to continue a preservation order against the Respondent's property sale proceeds and for interim disbursements.

The Respondent sought to lift the preservation order.

The court continued the preservation order under section 40 of the Family Law Act, finding a risk of dissipation and potential irreparable harm to the Applicant's spousal support claim.

However, the Applicant's request for interim disbursements was dismissed, as she was not found to be impecunious and the requested expenses were deemed premature.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as no costs outline was uploaded to Case Center.

This is a costs endorsement arising from a jurisdiction motion and a Rule 25(19) motion.

The court had previously determined that Ontario had jurisdiction over spousal support claims but that property division claims were governed by Iranian law under s.15 of the Family Law Act.

The applicant, Ms. Namdar, was found to be the successful party on the underlying jurisdiction motion and sought substantial indemnity costs.

The respondent, Mr. Maali, argued for divided success and sought costs based on an offer to settle.

The court found that Mr. Maali's offer to settle did not constitute a true compromise, thus not triggering Rule 18(14) cost consequences.

Considering the complexity and importance of the issues, and the reasonable conduct of both parties, the court awarded Ms. Namdar fixed costs and disbursements of $32,250, which included expert fees, finding her claimed fees of over $70,000 to be disproportionate.

The applicant, Setareh Namdar, brought a motion under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to change or delete parts of a previous order made on March 25, 2024.

The applicant sought to remove sentences from paragraph 63 of the prior endorsement, arguing they mistakenly conflated 'property division' with 'equitable claims' and were made without proper notice regarding equitable claims.

The respondent, Amir Ali Maali, argued Rule 25(19) could not be used to reargue the case.

The court found it had jurisdiction under Rule 25(19)(d) because the issue of whether the Family Law Act applied to the applicant's specific equitable claims for unjust enrichment and joint family venture was not fully before the court or noticed.

The court clarified that while s.15 of the Family Law Act governs property rights based on habitual residence, it does not necessarily apply to all equitable claims, which are rooted in common law.

The motion was granted, and paragraph 63 of the prior endorsement was replaced to reflect this clarification.

This trial determined whether funds advanced by the respondent grandparents to the applicant mother and respondent father during their marriage constituted a gift or a loan for the purpose of property equalization.

The applicant argued the funds were a gift, while the respondents contended they were a loan.

The court applied the presumption of resulting trust, finding that the applicant failed to rebut it.

The court also considered factors for determining a loan, concluding that the funds were indeed a loan based on the grandparents' financial circumstances, their expectation of repayment, and evidence of partial repayments.

The applicant's testimony was found inconsistent and not credible.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Daurio J. dated January 30, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

This decision addresses a motion brought by the wife (S.R.) to enforce a consent order regarding the release of $77,000 from the sale proceeds of the matrimonial home, representing retroactive child support, and past and future spousal support.

The husband (S.C.H.) argued that the funds should be held in trust until the final resolution of all issues, including costs, based on the interpretation of the consent order's holdback provisions.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation, reading the order as a whole and considering surrounding circumstances, and found that the holdback language in paragraph 2 applied to all financial allocations, not just the property equalization payment.

The wife's motion was dismissed, and the funds are to remain in trust pending further order or agreement.

Following a motion for interim child support where the respondent father was partially successful, both parties sought costs.

The respondent sought $8,000 in partial indemnity costs, while the applicant mother sought $1,500 or that each party bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found the respondent was the successful party but reduced the quantum due to divided success and the fact that his offer to settle was not more favourable than the result.

The respondent was awarded $3,500 in costs.

The respondent father brought a motion for interim child support, including retroactive support for a period when he had primary care of the children after restricting the applicant mother's parenting time due to her impaired driving arrest.

The mother opposed the retroactive claim, arguing it would reward the father's unilateral self-help, and questioned his ongoing entitlement due to his fluctuating self-employment income.

The court granted retroactive support effective from the date the father gave formal notice of his claim, finding that the children should not be penalized for the father's conduct.

Ongoing offset support and proportionate sharing of section 7 expenses were also ordered based on the parties' 2021 stated incomes.

The Applicant mother sought a temporary parenting order to resume a fixed parenting schedule, including overnight time, after two impaired driving incidents with children in the car.

The Respondent father had largely withheld the children due to safety concerns related to her alcohol abuse.

The court considered the children's best interests, the status quo, and the mother's efforts towards sobriety.

The court granted a modified parenting schedule with overnight access but imposed strict conditions, including supervision by the maternal grandfather for two months and mandatory use of the Soberlink Alcohol Monitoring System.

The mother appealed an interim order that temporarily varied a final parenting schedule to a week-about arrangement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law by failing to apply the stringent test required for an interim variation of a final parenting order.

The motion judge improperly conflated the best interests of the child analysis with the requirement to find compelling or exceptional circumstances to disturb the status quo on an interim basis.

The interim variation was set aside and the father's motion was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, life insurance as security, and disclosure.

The respondent, a self-employed IT consultant operating through a personal services corporation, argued his income was lower due to retained earnings and reduced hours from a medical condition.

The court imputed income to the respondent, finding no valid business reason to retain pre-tax corporate earnings and noting he was underemployed compared to his medical restrictions.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $2,250 per month and maintain $700,000 in life insurance designating the applicant as the irrevocable beneficiary.

This ruling addresses two motions brought by the applicant in a family law proceeding, which is intertwined with an ongoing construction lien action.

The applicant sought disclosure from the respondent, production of his former lawyer's file in the lien action, and an order to question non-parties.

The core dispute revolves around a settlement reached during a family law trial, which the applicant seeks to set aside, alleging misrepresentation by the respondent regarding his financial affairs and position in the lien action.

The court found that the respondent had waived solicitor-client privilege and ordered significant disclosure from him, including his former lawyer's file and communications with the non-parties.

However, the request to question the non-parties was denied as premature, pending the completion of the ordered disclosure.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion for leave to appeal, granted a stay pending the appeal, and ordered the hearing of the appeal to be expedited.

Costs of $5,000 were left to the discretion of the appeal panel.

This appeal concerned a family law dispute between separated spouses regarding financial issues.

The appellant, Fay-Lynn Muraven, challenged the trial judge's decisions on a date of marriage deduction for inherited property, the calculation of after-tax costs for children's parochial school expenses (s. 7 expenses), and the refusal to award prejudgment interest on equalization payments and child support arrears.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the trial judge's application of inconsistent standards, the discretion in reopening trials for new evidence, and the exercise of discretion regarding prejudgment interest.

The Court found no errors in the trial judge's decisions, concluding that the inherited property was acquired before marriage, the s. 7 expense calculation was reasonable, and the refusal to award prejudgment interest was supported by the evidence, despite the lack of explicit reasons.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought to overturn a trial judge's determinations regarding property and spousal support issues following a 21-day trial.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility assessments, emphasizing the high standard of deference owed to such findings in family law cases.

The appellant's arguments were largely rejected as an attempt to retry the case.

While a clerical error in the equalization payment was corrected in the appellant's favour, the appeal was otherwise dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.