Daryl Gelgoot

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 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.

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.

The applicant sought costs following a contested family law motion, requesting full recovery costs of $33,539 or alternatively partial recovery costs of $22,136.

The respondent argued that a clause in a Partial Interim Separation Agreement barred any costs award or, alternatively, that costs should be limited to a substantially lower amount.

The court held that the contractual clause requiring each party to pay their own legal and professional fees did not waive the applicant’s right to seek a judicial award of costs.

Finding the applicant to be the successful party and noting that an offer to settle engaged full recovery entitlement for part of the proceeding, the court reduced the claimed amounts due to excessive hourly rates, duplication of work, and unnecessary attendance by multiple counsel.

Costs were fixed on an all‑inclusive basis.

The respondent moved to bifurcate a family law trial to determine custody, support, and the validity of a marriage contract before addressing equalization of net family property.

The applicant opposed and sought extensive financial disclosure, arguing the issues of property division and spousal support were interrelated.

The court held that the validity of the marriage contract and spousal support analysis under Miglin require knowledge of the parties’ financial positions at separation.

Because property equalization must precede spousal support and the issues were intertwined, bifurcation would risk prejudice and inefficiency.

The motion for bifurcation was dismissed and the respondent was ordered to provide full financial disclosure regarding assets and liabilities at separation.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support, child support, and other relief, seeking to set aside the spousal support waiver in the parties' marriage contract.

The parties separated after a 30-year marriage during which they enjoyed a lavish lifestyle, and the respondent husband's net worth grew to approximately $500 million.

The court found the marriage contract's support waiver to be unconscionable and severed it from the agreement.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $175,000 per month, retroactive to the date of separation, and to maintain life insurance and health benefits for the applicant.

The claim for interim child support was dismissed.

The applicant sought costs following the dismissal of the respondent's motion to set aside or vacate an arbitrator's award, remove the arbitrator, declare the mediation/arbitration agreement void, stay the arbitration, and determine the child's school for the 2012/2013 school year.

The applicant claimed full indemnity costs of $4,788.38, while the respondent sought no costs order.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant but reduced the amount to account for time spent on a prior motion step that was not compensated at that time.

The father brought a motion seeking to set aside an arbitration award made by Linda Chodos regarding the school placement of the parties' child for the 2012/2013 school year.

The father sought removal of the arbitrator, a declaration that the mediation/arbitration agreement was invalid, a stay of the arbitration, and a temporary parenting order.

The mother opposed the motion and sought a stay of the parenting proceeding.

The court found that the Ontario Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction to set aside the award, challenge the arbitrator, or remove the arbitrator.

The court determined that the arbitrator did not resign and that the mediation/arbitration agreement remained in force.

The court dismissed the father's motion and granted a stay of the parenting proceeding, allowing the arbitration process to continue.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act seeking a sealing order and anonymization of the parties and their children in a family law proceeding.

The motion was based on evidence that the children were emotionally vulnerable due to their parents’ separation and other recent traumatic events, and that the family’s prominence could attract media attention and expose the children to bullying or psychological harm.

Applying the Dagenais–Mentuck framework and authorities on open courts and confidentiality orders, the court found a serious risk of harm to a public interest—namely the protection of vulnerable children.

However, the court held that sealing the entire file was unnecessary.

Instead, it ordered that the parties and children be identified by initials and that only the portions of the file dealing with the marriage contract challenge, exclusive possession of the cottage, and custody and access be sealed.