Dani Z. Frodis

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his motion to prevent his daughter from changing elementary schools to a Catholic school, and the associated costs order.

The respondent mother, who had sole decision-making authority, sought to enroll their daughter in the local Catholic school due to bullying at the current school and the academic superiority of the new school.

The motion judge found the mother was committed to raising the daughter in the Jewish faith and had secured exemptions from religious instruction at the Catholic school, thus finding no breach of the prior order for the daughter to be raised in the Jewish faith.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the motion judge's decision or costs award, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant sought to overturn a trial judge's decision, arguing an error in failing to incorporate a rectification analysis and a finding that the appellant did not misunderstand the marriage contract.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate a misunderstanding of the contract, thereby precluding any remedy in rectification.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Applicant brought a motion for disclosure of the Respondent's solicitor's file and for responses to questions refused during questioning.

The Respondent brought a cross-motion for disclosure of the Applicant's solicitor's file.

The Applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement, alleging the Respondent materially misrepresented his financial circumstances by failing to disclose a significant business sale.

The court found that the Respondent had waived solicitor-client privilege by putting his state of mind at issue in his defence against allegations of intentional torts.

The court also determined that settlement privilege did not apply to the Respondent's settlement discussions due to the public interest in ensuring full and frank disclosure in cases of alleged misrepresentation.

The Applicant's motion was granted, and the Respondent's cross-motion was dismissed.

The appellant husband appealed an arbitrator's award dismissing his claim to a 50 percent beneficial ownership interest in the matrimonial home.

The husband had transferred his jointly-held interest in the home to the respondent wife to protect it from potential creditors.

The arbitrator found the transfer was a gift, not a resulting trust.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the arbitrator correctly applied the presumption of resulting trust, properly considered the husband's intention to defeat creditors, and made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the husband intended to gift his interest and divested himself of control over the property.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for the immediate return of the parties' four children, alleging the respondent withheld them contrary to an existing consent order.

The respondent sought to impose a condition prohibiting the children from having contact with the applicant's current partner's children due to COVID-19 health concerns.

The court found that the respondent failed to demonstrate an increased health risk and that the applicant's blended family, despite maintaining separate residences, could constitute a "household" for public health guideline purposes.

The motion was granted, enforcing the original parenting schedule without the additional condition sought by the respondent.

This case involves three appeals arising from matrimonial proceedings.

The Court of Appeal addressed the validity of a stay of execution obtained by a third-party creditor (the husband's father) against the matrimonial home, the striking of the husband's pleadings for non-compliance with court orders, and the interpretation of a domestic contract concerning the wife's interest in the matrimonial home and equalization payments.

The court found that the stay of execution was justified under the Courts of Justice Act, despite not meeting the Family Law Act criteria, as the creditor's objective was to defeat the wife's claims.

The decision to strike the husband's pleadings was upheld due to his wilful non-compliance and history of defaults.

The trial judge's interpretation of the domestic contract, granting the wife a one-half interest in the matrimonial home, and the valuation of the husband's debt to his father at zero for equalization purposes were affirmed.

However, the costs award from the lower court was varied to credit the husband for interim payments already made.

Motion to change child support terms in a Separation Agreement dated January 13, 2009.

The primary dispute concerned how post-secondary education expenses for two daughters should be shared between parents, specifically regarding the allocation and use of Registered Education Savings Plans (RESPs).

The mother sought to vary the agreement to allow each parent to benefit solely from the RESP funds they individually contributed post-separation, while the father argued the agreement should be enforced as written, requiring all RESP funds to be used first before apportioning remaining expenses.

The court found material changes in circumstances warranting variation of the agreement and ordered the parents to share undergraduate post-secondary expenses on a 60-40 basis (father-mother), with each parent free to use their own RESP funds as they see fit.

The court deferred determination of graduate degree funding to a future review.

This motion addressed several outstanding issues between separated parents, including the management of s. 7 expenses for children, reconciliation of rent revenues from properties, allocation of corporate debt, and a passport penalty.

The court determined that children's acting expenses should be included in the s. 7 budget, with any income generated to be set aside for future post-secondary or acting costs.

It ordered the creation of a new joint bank account for s. 7 contributions with monthly statements.

The court reconciled rent revenues, finding the respondent owed the applicant $18,532.70 after various adjustments.

Claims by the applicant regarding a lien and an HST error related to corporate debt were dismissed, as was the respondent's claim for a passport penalty.

The applicant wife sought equalization of net family property and spousal support, alleging the respondent husband had substantial unreported cash income from his jewellery business.

The court rejected the applicant's expert evidence on hidden income and accepted the respondent's business valuation.

The court applied the presumption of resulting trust to the matrimonial home and a gifted property.

Income was imputed to both parties for support purposes.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment and ongoing spousal support, with adjustments made for previous advances and overpayments.

The applicant wife and respondent husband separated after an 11-year marriage.

The husband's pleadings were struck for non-compliance with disclosure orders.

The court imputed an income of $100,000 to the husband for support purposes, finding him intentionally underemployed and noting the significant financial support he received from his wealthy father.

The court ordered prospective child and spousal support but denied retroactive support due to unexplained delay.

The court interpreted the parties' domestic contract as entitling the wife to one-half of the equity in the matrimonial home, which the husband had purchased solely in his name.

Furthermore, the court stayed a writ of execution obtained by the husband's father against the husband, finding it was an improper attempt to encumber the matrimonial home and defeat the wife's claims.