Daryl Gelgoot

The appellant mother took her three children from Kuwait to Canada without the respondent father's consent and claimed refugee status, alleging domestic violence.

The father applied for the children's return to Kuwait.

The application judge ordered the children returned, finding no risk of serious harm under s. 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the application judge erred by rejecting uncontradicted expert evidence that the children's fears of their father were independent and not influenced by the mother.

The Court also held that ordering the children's return before their refugee claims were determined violated the principle of non-refoulement.

The appeal was allowed and a custody hearing was ordered in Ontario.

The applicant sought summary judgment to dismiss the respondent's claims, primarily concerning a Florida condominium, arguing lack of jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, or no genuine issue for trial based on a domestic contract.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to amend her answer.

The court granted the respondent leave to amend her answer, found that it had jurisdiction over the dispute, and determined that Ontario was the convenient forum.

The court also found a genuine issue for trial regarding the interpretation of the domestic contract and declined to sever the divorce from corollary issues, as it would disadvantage the respondent.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the unreported decision of Hood J. dated October 31, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the respondent and $5,000 to the trustee.

The applicant, a former spouse, sought preservation and non-depletion orders under sections 12 and 40 of the Family Law Act, respectively, to restrain the respondent from dissipating assets.

These orders were contingent on setting aside a comprehensive separation agreement due to alleged misrepresentation and non-disclosure.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant lacked standing for a section 40 order as a divorced spouse and failed to meet the stringent Mareva injunction test, which was deemed applicable given the contingent nature of her claims for equalization and support.

The court found no strong prima facie case to set aside the agreement, no evidence of asset dissipation to avoid judgment, and no undertaking as to damages.

The court issued a second supplementary judgment addressing the applicant's request for a spousal rollover of an RRSP and the question of costs.

The court dismissed the spousal rollover request, finding it had been substantially complied with through payments into a joint account for shared expenses.

On costs, the respondent was deemed to have prevailed overall, having beaten his offers to settle.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs throughout and substantial indemnity costs from the date of his offer, with adjustments for the applicant's successful defense of a misconceived breach of fiduciary duty claim and shared costs for an expert income report.

In a supplementary judgment following a family law trial, the court addressed two outstanding property equalization issues that were not decided in the main judgment.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $6,946.41 to the applicant for her share of the net proceeds from the sale of a condominium.

The court deferred the issue of a $53,764.73 RRSP spousal rollover, directing the parties to address it during oral submissions on costs.

The court also appended a list of typographical corrections to the main judgment.

The respondent brought a motion to quash an appeal on the ground that the order under appeal was interlocutory and not final, placing it outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.

The order arose from ongoing family law proceedings and required the appellant to make monthly spousal and child support payments, with a provision allowing the respondent to strike the appellant's pleadings on financial issues if payments were not made.

The appellant argued he could not pay and that the consequence clause created a "catch 22" preventing his participation in ongoing proceedings.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was interlocutory and quashed the appeal, finding the jurisdictional issue was plain and obvious.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from orders arising from summary judgment motions, while also commencing appeals in the Court of Appeal.

Noting potential jurisdictional issues regarding whether the underlying orders were final or interlocutory, the Divisional Court adjourned the motions for leave to appeal and ordered the parties to provide supplementary written submissions on the jurisdictional question.

The parties separated after a 10.5-year relationship.

The respondent, a high-earning cardiac surgeon, continued to deposit his income into a joint account managed by the applicant for seven years post-separation.

In 2008, the parties signed a separation agreement providing the applicant with $29,000 per month in indefinite spousal support.

The respondent sought to set aside the agreement and claim damages for breach of fiduciary duty regarding the applicant's use of the joint funds.

The court dismissed the fiduciary duty claim, finding no such duty existed between the spouses in these circumstances.

While the court upheld the separation agreement as valid under the Family Law Act, it applied the Miglin framework to override the spousal support provisions under the Divorce Act.

The court found the support quantum was based on significant tax defalcation and far exceeded the applicant's entitlement.

Spousal support was terminated after a short transition period.

The respondents (former husband and his father) brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant's (former wife's) claim that a Separation Agreement should be set aside due to material misrepresentation and non-disclosure regarding the former husband's beneficial interest in a family trust.

The applicant opposed this motion and brought a cross-motion for a preservation order.

The court dismissed the respondents' motion for summary judgment, finding that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the materiality of the non-disclosure.

The court also granted partial summary judgment in favour of the applicant, finding that the former husband deliberately failed to disclose his interest in the trust and that the former wife did not have actual knowledge of this non-disclosure.

The cross-motion for a preservation order was dismissed.

The remaining issue for trial is the materiality of the non-disclosure and the appropriate remedy.

This costs endorsement followed a motion with divided success.

The applicant succeeded on minor issues (dismissing a sealing order motion), while the respondent succeeded on the major issue (establishing privilege over documents and obtaining an order for their delivery/destruction).

The court found the major issue occupied significantly more time.

Applying Family Law Rule 24(6), the court apportioned costs, awarding them to the respondent due to greater success on the major issue.

The applicant's failure to provide a costs outline, while criticizing the respondent's counsel's time investment, was noted as an 'attack in the air'.

The respondent's costs outline was deemed reasonable given the complexity and effort involved.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $81,275.65 in costs.

The respondent, Eli Dadouch, brought a motion seeking the return and destruction of solicitor-client privileged notes surreptitiously photographed by the applicant, Anita Bielak, and for orders sealing the court file and restraining the applicant from discussing the litigation with their adult children.

The court found the notes to be privileged and ordered their return and destruction.

However, the court dismissed the requests for a sealing order and a gag order, emphasizing the principle of open courts and the impracticality of such an order given the adult children's awareness and the need for therapeutic, not legal, intervention for their distress.

The applicant moved to enforce prior disclosure orders, fix dates for questioning, and direct terms for the parties' IT consultants to confer.

The respondent sought an adjournment due to his principal counsel's trial commitments and late service of motion materials.

The court denied the adjournment, finding no unfairness to the respondent and noting the severe prejudice that further delay would cause to the scheduled trial management conference.

The court ordered the respondent to produce the requested electronic data, financial back-up documents, and a privilege log, and directed the IT consultants to confer without counsel present to facilitate the extraction of electronic evidence.

The applicant brought a motion for a penalty following a previous finding that the respondent was in contempt for breaching various court orders, including failing to provide financial disclosure.

Although the respondent had since provided most of the required disclosure after retaining new counsel, he had also transferred over $53,000 from the sale of a property to his new wife in violation of a court order.

The court found that while the respondent had significantly complied with disclosure orders, his unauthorized transfer of funds warranted a penalty.

The court ordered the respondent to pay a $10,000 fine and a $5,000 penalty to the applicant, but declined to strike his pleadings given his recent efforts to comply and his proposal to pay arrears from the proceeds of a property sale.

The respondent brought a motion to strike the applicant's pleadings and a separate motion for contempt, both based on substantially similar allegations of breaching court orders.

The applicant brought a motion to stay the motion to strike pending the disposition of the contempt motion, arguing that responding to the motion to strike would effectively compel him to testify and violate his right against self-incrimination in the quasi-criminal contempt proceeding.

The court agreed, finding that the applicant's right to a fair trial on the contempt motion would be prejudiced if he were forced to respond to the civil motion to strike first.

The court ordered the motion to strike stayed pending the resolution of the contempt motion.

The respondent wife in a family law proceeding brought a motion seeking an order that service of her Answer and Amended Answer on the applicant husband be deemed service on 36 added corporate and trust respondents, arguing the husband was their alter ego.

The court found insufficient evidence on the motion to make an alter ego finding.

The court validated service on one Ontario corporation and two entities in non-contracting states under the Rules of Civil Procedure as they had actual notice.

However, the court held it had no discretion to validate service on the remaining entities located in Hague Convention contracting states, as Rule 17.05(3) is mandatory and a complete code for service abroad.

The applicant and respondent both sought costs following a leave to appeal application where success was divided.

The applicant sought $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis, arguing they were successful on the dominant issue regarding the appointment of a litigation guardian.

The respondent sought $10,000, arguing they were successful on five of the six issues.

The court found that success was divided and ordered that no costs be payable by either party.

Following a successful family law motion granting injunctive relief to prevent dissipation of assets, the moving party sought costs on a full recovery basis.

The court considered Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and determined that the responding party had acted in bad faith by failing to provide proper financial disclosure, terminating support, and attempting to deal with jointly owned assets while international proceedings were ongoing.

Given the complexity of the litigation, the high financial stakes, and the conduct of the responding party, the court held that full indemnity costs were warranted.

The court ordered payment of substantial legal fees and disbursements to counsel for the moving party within 30 days.

The applicant sought to vary a week‑on/week‑off parenting arrangement so that the child would primarily reside with her.

The dispute centred on allegations that the child was unhappy during time spent with the respondent and required emotional space to address her feelings.

The court considered the status quo principle but found special circumstances justified altering the existing arrangement.

Relying in part on evidence from the child’s counsellor and the child’s expressed wishes, the court ordered that the child reside with the applicant and spend time with the respondent in accordance with the child’s wishes.

A parenting assessment under s. 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act was also ordered.

On an interim family law motion, the applicant sought temporary spousal support, an order dispensing with the respondent’s consent to sell the matrimonial home, and payment of home maintenance expenses pending sale.

The court considered the parties’ financial circumstances under the Divorce Act and determined that interim support should be set using the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, imputing income to the respondent and none to the applicant.

The court also found the respondent had not established a reasonable need to delay sale of the matrimonial home and authorized its repair and listing for sale without the respondent’s consent if necessary.

Orders were made for interim spousal support, the repair and sale of the property, ongoing property expenses, and further financial disclosure.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.