Dani Z. Frodis

The applicant mother brought a motion for financial disclosure from the respondent father dating back to 1995 in relation to a claim for retroactive child support.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to sever the issue of entitlement for the years 1995-2007, arguing that a trial should be held on entitlement before disclosure is ordered.

The court dismissed the cross-motion for severance, finding that financial disclosure is necessary to assess whether the respondent engaged in blameworthy conduct under the D.B.S. framework.

The court granted the applicant's motion for disclosure, ordering the respondent to produce financial information from 1995 onwards.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings and directing an uncontested trial due to his failure to comply with disclosure orders since 2006.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motions judge's exercise of discretion, noting that lesser remedies were considered and the order was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Costs decision following a family law motion seeking to compel disclosure and other relief relating to financial statements and property issues potentially involving third parties.

The court found the moving party’s motion to compel disclosure was largely premature, unnecessary, and overreaching because disclosure timelines had not been fixed, pleadings were incomplete, and some disclosure required cooperation from non-parties.

The court also noted the moving party accepted the responding party’s valuation date during the motion.

Finding that the responding party attempted to avoid the motion and was the successful party, the court awarded partial indemnity costs.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant alleged the respondent forged her signature to obtain mortgages on the matrimonial home and cottage, placing the properties at risk of enforcement by a bank.

The court addressed motions concerning amendment of the application, the involvement of the lender, and the respondent’s ability to bring further motions while in contempt of prior court orders.

The court permitted the mortgage validity dispute to proceed through a civil action with the issue of the mortgages’ validity determined as a preliminary issue before the family court under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Because the respondent had failed to comply with multiple disclosure, support, and cost orders and had not met conditions imposed in a contempt order, his motion to vary support was struck.

The respondent was given a final opportunity to purge contempt before the applicant could move to strike his answer.

The applicant and her sister, who co-owned the matrimonial home, sought an order to distribute the net proceeds of its sale.

The respondent husband, who had refused to consent to the sale, sought a Mareva injunction to freeze the proceeds, alleging his equalization claim would be defeated.

The court authorized the sale under s. 23(b) of the Family Law Act, dispensing with the respondent's consent.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion for a Mareva injunction, finding no real risk of asset dissipation, and ordered the proceeds distributed with one-third held in trust as security for the respondent's potential interest.

The payor father brought a motion to change a 2004 consent order, seeking retroactive variation of child and spousal support based on a claim that his actual income was lower than the $90,000 imputed in the order.

The court found the father was intentionally under-employed and had unreasonably deducted personal travel expenses from his consulting business, maintaining his imputed income at $90,000.

The court allowed retroactive adjustments to child support based on changes in the children's residence and post-secondary attendance, setting the effective notice date at March 2006.

The father's claim for overpayment of spousal support was dismissed, but ongoing spousal support was ordered to be recalculated to reflect the mother's increased actual income since 2008.

The court also provided directions on the use of RESP funds and the children's required contributions to their post-secondary education expenses.

The appellant payor appealed a trial decision awarding retroactive child and spousal support, ongoing spousal support, and costs to the respondent recipient.

The parties had a separation agreement, but the payor failed to disclose significant increases in income and negotiated reduced support payments.

The Court of Appeal upheld the retroactive child support award, finding the payor's failure to disclose income constituted blameworthy conduct.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding spousal support, limiting the retroactive spousal support to the period before the recipient became self-sufficient and setting aside the ongoing spousal support award due to the time-limited nature of the separation agreement.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's judgments regarding the division of matrimonial property.

The respondent conceded a mathematical error in the calculation of the net proceeds from the sale of a property, which the Court of Appeal corrected.

However, the court dismissed the remainder of the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding under the Pecore analysis that a $140,000 advance from the appellant's parents was a gift rather than a loan.

The trial judge's costs award was also upheld.

The appellant appealed a support order, arguing that the motions judge should have directed a trial of an issue under Rule 15(13) of the Family Law Rules.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, noting that neither party sought to cross-examine on affidavits, the motions judge was not asked to direct a trial, and the judge had discretion not to do so.

Applying the standard of review for support orders, the court found no error in principle or significant misapprehension of evidence.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a substantial indemnity basis fixed at $10,000.

The appellant moved to introduce fresh evidence on appeal, consisting of three affidavits prepared to comply with a previous order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the affidavits were not before the original judge and could not be used to support the submission that a trial of an issue should have been ordered.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion regarding Minutes of Settlement executed by the respondent and the appellant's trustee in bankruptcy.

The appellant argued that a term releasing the respondent's claim for future spousal and child support was inadvertently omitted from the Minutes of Settlement.

The motion judge determined the issue on unclear and conflicting evidence.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge erred by failing to direct the trial of an issue.

The appeal was allowed in part, and a trial of the issue was directed.

The appellant wife appealed a trial judgment dismissing her claim for unjust enrichment and challenging the calculation of the respondent husband's net family property.

The appellant argued she was unjustly enriched by advancing funds for home renovations and a basement apartment, but the trial judge found the funds and resulting income were reasonably pooled for household expenses.

The appellant also argued that real estate commissions on unclosed sales should have been valued with hindsight, excluding a failed deal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the unjust enrichment analysis and upholding the valuation of the commissions without hindsight, consistent with Supreme Court of Canada precedent.