David A. Jarvis

The applicant wife brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a settlement agreement reached during a closed family mediation.

The respondent husband opposed, arguing no final agreement was reached and that the mediator's report was protected by settlement privilege.

The court found that the exception to settlement privilege applied to prove the existence of the agreement.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue for trial, as the evidence, including representations made by the husband's former counsel to the court, demonstrated a clear meeting of the minds on the essential terms.

The motion was granted, and the husband was ordered to pay the agreed equalization amount plus costs.

The respondent husband brought a motion to change a final family law order, seeking to set aside prior support-related endorsements, terminate spousal support retroactively, rescind support arrears, and direct the Family Responsibility Office to cease enforcement.

The wife cross-moved to consolidate a related civil action with the family proceedings and to require the husband to post security for costs.

The court found that the husband's discharge from bankruptcy extinguished the equalization payment and pre-bankruptcy cost awards but not the spousal support obligation.

Having regard to the husband's persistent non-compliance with court orders, his failure to provide required disclosure, and his pattern of delay and obstruction, the court dismissed the husband's motion to change support-related relief, consolidated the civil action, and ordered the husband to post $10,000 security for costs.

Following a 16-day trial involving parenting, equalization, and fraudulent conveyance claims, the applicant wife sought costs of over $305,000.

The court found the wife was largely successful, particularly on the dominant issues of equalization and fraudulent conveyance against the husband and one respondent.

The court awarded the wife $223,000 in costs, apportioned among the issues.

Additionally, the court ordered two self-represented respondents to pay $500 each for relying on AI-generated fake case law in their submissions, noting their failure to verify the authorities or take responsibility when the issue was raised.

The applicant wife brought a motion for child and spousal support against the respondent husband.

The parties were married in 2002 and separated in mid-2022.

They have two children and agreed to shared parenting in a September 2023 consent.

The husband is employed in senior management with annual income of approximately $322,000 to $398,000, while the wife has not worked outside the home since 2013 and receives approximately $35,450 annually from investment income and child tax benefits.

The central disputes concerned the husband's actual income (particularly undisclosed cottage rental income), the proper parenting arrangement for support calculation purposes, and whether the wife should be required to use capital to supplement her needs.

The court imputed income to both parties and ordered child and spousal support, along with an expert assessment of the husband's business income.

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment based on the terms of a Separation Agreement dated November 24, 2023, which provided for spousal support of $800 monthly for three years, terminating on August 30, 2024.

The applicant opposed the motion, claiming the parties had orally agreed to extend the support obligation for a full year and that four months of additional payments constituted a variation of the agreement.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted the respondent's motion for summary judgment, finding the applicant bound by the terms of the Agreement and that the additional payments were gratuitous.

The court awarded costs to the respondent.

A complex family law trial involving equalization of net family property, child and spousal support, and fraudulent conveyance claims arising from the breakdown of a 17-year marriage.

The applicant wife sought equalization of property and support for three children.

The respondent husband, who had engaged in deceptive financial transactions including placing a mortgage on the matrimonial home without the wife's knowledge and selling it to a third party, was found to have fraudulently conveyed the property.

The court imputed income to the husband due to inadequate disclosure and awarded the wife an equalization payment, child support arrears, and section 7 expense contributions.

The court also addressed overlapping claims by multiple respondents and dismissed claims lacking evidentiary foundation.

Following a family tragedy involving domestic violence, the applicant sought enforcement of a consent order regarding property ownership and distribution of sale proceeds.

The respondent brother claimed entitlement to reimbursement for post-order property expenses and carrying costs.

The court found the applicant was an unreliable witness but entitled to the majority of her claimed relief.

The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $45,532 after adjusting for legitimate expenses he incurred on the property.

Claims against the former lawyer were dismissed with costs awarded to him.

This is a costs ruling following a complex fourteen-day combined family and civil trial.

The trial involved equalization payment disputes between spouses exceeding $10.5 million, unequal division claims, post-valuation date adjustments, fraud and oppression allegations, and a civil action for fraudulent conveyancing.

The husband was ordered to pay the wife an equalization payment of $1,054,267 and the wife was ordered to pay the husband $1,000,000 for oppression and punitive damages.

The court addressed costs claims from the wife and a third-party defendant, finding the civil action unnecessary and awarding limited costs to the wife for a specific pre-trial motion, while awarding substantial costs to the third-party defendant who successfully defended against fraud allegations.

This is a costs ruling arising from a family law trial decision released on May 5, 2025.

The principal trial issues involved determination of the valuation date and property ownership, including equalization of the spouses' net family properties.

Neither party's choice of valuation date was accepted; the court determined a different valuation date (August 3, 2013) for which there was insufficient evidence to proceed with a full trial.

The applicant sought partial recovery costs of at least $375,000, while the respondent sought the same amount or alternatively that no costs be awarded.

The court found the applicant achieved partial success on the valuation date and limitation period extension, while the respondent achieved no success and acted in bad faith.

The court awarded costs to the applicant but at a significantly reduced amount due to inefficiencies in the litigation strategy and reliance on an invalid agreement.

Following a combined family and civil trial, the court determined equalization, trust, limitation, and oppression issues arising from a long marriage, disputed asset transfers, and the management of a closely held corporation that owned a farm property.

The court rejected large portions of the respondent's fraud-based narrative, found several earlier oppression and fraudulent conveyance allegations statute-barred, but held that the applicant's post-May 2022 conduct in arranging the sale of the farm to an aligned family member and stripping the corporation of value was oppressive under the OBCA.

The court also recognized a 50% trust interest in the Blue Mountain chalet in favour of the respondent, excluded the Taylor Mills property as gifted property, reassessed the respondent's marriage-date and valuation-date business interests, and rejected several claimed trust-related deductions and adjustments.

Equalization of net family property resulted in a payment owing to the applicant, while a separate post-equalization oppression and punitive award was made in favour of the respondent.

This decision addresses the determination of the valuation date for equalization of net family property and the extension of time to bring an equalization claim under the Family Law Act.

The court finds the parties separated on August 3, 2013, and grants the applicant wife an extension of time to bring her claim, rejecting the respondent husband's earlier separation date and arguments of substantial prejudice.

The court also finds that a family "Agreement and Last Will" was a sham trust, intended to shield assets from creditors, and that the evidentiary record is insufficient to determine equalization, requiring a new trial on equalization and support.

This ruling addresses the issue of costs following a comprehensive settlement in a high-conflict family law matter.

The parties resolved all substantive issues before trial, leaving costs to be determined by the court.

The court reviews the competing approaches to awarding costs post-settlement, ultimately awarding $40,000 to the applicant, Sarah Brown, to be paid from the respondent’s share of settlement funds, primarily due to inadequate child support and legal expenses incurred for a domestic contract.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their motion to compel the production of law firm trust ledgers and unredacted bank statements from the respondents.

The underlying action involves allegations of a massive international civil fraud.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that the law firm trust ledgers were presumptively privileged and that the appellants failed to rebut the presumption.

The Court also agreed that the 'future crimes and fraud' exception to solicitor-client privilege did not apply to civil fraud.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the motion judge erred in presuming privilege over redacted entries in non-law firm bank statements without requiring the respondents to prove the privilege claim.

The issue of the unredacted bank statements was remitted to the motion judge.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Downtown Brampton Development Corporation (BIA) to withdraw its support for a pilot Food District operating on the applicants' property.

The BIA had previously endorsed the project subject to certain conditions but later revoked its approval after receiving complaints from competing businesses, without giving the applicants notice of the motion or an opportunity to be heard.

The Divisional Court applied the Baker factors and found the BIA's process was procedurally unfair.

The application was granted and the BIA's decision was quashed.

The appellants appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) Reconsideration Decision that upheld the denial of their claims for non-earner and housekeeping benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court found no error of law or procedural unfairness in the LAT's handling of the hearing, including its evidentiary rulings and the substitution of an adjudicator for preliminary matters.

The court also dismissed the appellants' allegation of a reasonable apprehension of bias regarding a LAT adjudicator who subsequently accepted employment with a different insurer, finding the high threshold for bias was not met.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

This family law trial addressed complex financial issues between former spouses after a protracted separation, including equalization of net family property, post-valuation date adjustments, and occupation rent for the matrimonial home.

The court assessed the credibility of both parties, determined the value of various assets and liabilities, and ruled on the deductibility of the husband's alleged pre-marriage assets and the excludability of the wife's gifted shares.

The decision also considered the wife's conduct regarding the delayed sale of the matrimonial home and the husband's claim for occupation rent, ultimately ordering a net payment from the husband to the wife, alongside a significant occupation rent payment from the wife to the husband.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its unfair labour practice complaint without a hearing.

The complaint alleged that the respondents improperly applied a local collective agreement over a provincial agreement in the construction industry.

The Divisional Court held that the application was not premature despite the applicant's failure to seek reconsideration from the Board.

However, the Court dismissed the application on the merits, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The Board had reasonably concluded that the two collective agreements could co-exist, that inquiring into the complaint served no labour relations purpose since the affected employer did not participate, and that the declaratory relief sought was of limited practical utility.

The appellant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a motor vehicle accident, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying a special award on housing benefits.

The insurer had unreasonably delayed and withheld benefits but agreed to pay the full amount claimed shortly before the hearing.

The LAT Adjudicator granted a special award on most benefits but denied it for housing benefits because no report on the value of renovations to the existing home was provided under s. 16(4)(c) of the SABS.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Adjudicator erred in law by interpreting s. 10 to require an adjudication of the amount of the benefit when the insurer had already agreed to pay the claimed amount.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying her catastrophic impairment designation and a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664.

The Divisional Court found the LAT erred in law by concluding it lacked jurisdiction to make a special award for benefits the insurer had delayed but ultimately agreed to pay before the hearing.

The Court also held the LAT breached procedural fairness by admitting and relying on the report of the insurer's psychiatric expert, who refused to attend the hearing for cross-examination.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal.

The moving party sought leave to appeal two decisions of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal because the moving party failed to file the necessary material.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the amount of $1,812.50.