Dani Z. Frodis

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a final consent order on an interim basis to increase his parenting time with the parties' 12-year-old daughter to an equal week-about schedule.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, arguing the father failed to prove a material change in circumstances.

The court found that a review provision in the final order allowed for a review without proving a material change.

Relying on the first of two conflicting Voice of the Child reports, the court determined that an equal parenting schedule was in the child's best interests and granted the father's motion.

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 moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal in respect to three of the four issues raised in the notice of motion.

Costs of the motion for leave to appeal were fixed at $6,750, payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

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 respondent husband brought a motion to change his child and spousal support obligations following a 2018 trial decision.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the children entering and exiting post-secondary studies in the United States.

The court determined the appropriate section 7 expenses, calculated the respondent's income using a pre-tax corporate income approach, and continued to impute $50,000 in income to the applicant.

The court declined to adjust the spousal support payable to account for the fact that the applicant, having relocated to the United States, no longer paid tax on spousal support, finding the respondent was no worse off and the applicant remained entitled to high-end support.

The applicant sought a divorce and judgment in accordance with a marriage contract signed in 1991.

The respondent husband sought to set aside the marriage contract, claiming inadequate financial disclosure, lack of understanding, duress, and unconscionability, or alternatively, rectification of a unilateral mistake regarding his entitlement to the matrimonial home's increased value.

The court dismissed the respondent's claims, finding he was aware of the applicant's assets, received independent legal advice, and faced no duress or exploitation.

The marriage contract was upheld, and the respondent was ordered to pay $85,000 in costs.

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.

The Respondent sought costs on a full recovery basis following an eight-day trial concerning motions to vary spousal and child support obligations and for payment of arrears.

The court found the Respondent to be the substantially successful party, despite some divided success.

The court declined to award full recovery costs based on alleged bad faith or Rule 18(14) settlement offers, finding neither party's conduct met the bad faith threshold and the offers did not strictly comply with the rule.

However, the Applicant's unreasonable behaviour and unreasonable settlement offers justified an increase in the costs awarded to the Respondent.

The Applicant was ordered to pay $120,000 in costs to the Respondent.

The applicant, Nicole Peerenboom, brought a motion to strike the pleadings of Robert Peerenboom due to his persistent non-compliance with court orders regarding interim costs, disbursements, and financial disclosure.

She also sought to strike Harold Peerenboom's pleadings for late filing and new claims.

The court found Robert's non-compliance wilful and struck his pleadings, allowing for reinstatement upon full compliance.

Harold's pleadings were struck only to the extent they raised new claims.

The appellant husband appealed an interlocutory order requiring him to pay $150,000 in interim costs and disbursements to the respondent wife in a complex matrimonial property dispute.

The appellant argued the motions judge erred in applying the four-part test for interim costs, specifically regarding the merit of the wife's claim, her inability to fund the litigation, and his ability to pay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error that would affect the outcome, as there was ample evidence to support the motions judge's findings on all branches of the test.

This decision provides supplementary reasons for calculating child and spousal support arrears following a 2002 consent order.

The court addressed the imputation of income, the methodology for calculating spousal support after children ceased to be "children of the marriage" and the tax treatment of lump sum spousal support arrears.

It was held that the applicant was not entitled to 60% of the family's net disposable income after child support obligations ended, and that a lump sum award of arrears of spousal support, representing amounts due under an existing order, was not required to be "netted down" for income tax deduction purposes as the Canada Revenue Agency permits such non-retroactive lump sum payments to be deducted by the payor.

This endorsement addresses outstanding issues from a family law trial, including the precise calculation of retroactive and prospective child and spousal support, the set-off of support arrears against an equalization payment, and whether post-judgment interest should accrue on the equalization payment.

The court adopted the applicant's methodology for support calculations, which assigned full responsibility for the children's section 7 expenses to the respondent.

Retroactive support arrears owed by the respondent were set off against the equalization payment owed by the applicant.

The court declined to award post-judgment interest on the equalization payment, finding it just given the equalization payment's origin in a non-interest-bearing debt owed by the respondent to a corporate entity.

Appeal from a trial judge's order resolving custody, access, support, and equalization issues following an 11-day trial.

The appellant challenged four issues: the award of sole custody to the respondent, the failure to apply the maximum contact principle, the equalization award regarding the valuation of a business interest, and the costs award.

The appellate court upheld the trial judge's findings on all issues, finding no reversible error and affirming the trial judge's discretionary decisions regarding custody arrangements and financial matters.