David A. Jarvis

The parties brought cross-motions to vary and enforce temporary child and spousal support orders.

The husband, who had recently lost his employment, sought to reduce his support obligations and access $20,000 from the matrimonial home sale proceeds held in trust.

The wife sought enforcement of the existing orders and further financial disclosure.

The court recalculated the husband's retroactive support obligations based on his actual income, declined to impute employment income to the wife, and ordered $33,384 to be released from the trust funds to the wife to satisfy the husband's support arrears.

The husband was also ordered to pay ongoing support based on his current Employment Insurance income and to provide further disclosure.

The applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to have two children found in need of protection and made Crown wards with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The respondent mother consented to the finding that the children were in need of protection.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the disposition of Crown wardship, given the mother's history of transience, substance abuse, and inability to adequately care for the children.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the mother should have access to the children, noting her recent rehabilitation efforts and the children's attachment to her.

The motion was granted in part, with Crown wardship ordered and a trial directed on the issue of access.

The respondent in the main action brought a motion for temporary spousal support and further financial disclosure.

The applicant opposed, arguing the parties were never spouses under the Family Law Act and that a previous $60,000 payment satisfied any obligation.

The court found the moving party established a prima facie case for support based on her residency in the responding party's home and financial dependence.

The court ordered the responding party to pay $1,600 monthly in temporary support based on an acknowledged income of $134,000.

On the disclosure issue, the court gave the responding party 30 days to engage an expert income analyst before mandating the extensive corporate disclosure requested.

The applicant sought costs of over $1 million and pre-judgment interest following a complex 19-day family law trial where she was largely successful.

The court rejected the applicant's claim for full recovery costs based on bad faith, finding the respondent's conduct unreasonable but not reaching the threshold of bad faith.

The court awarded the applicant $936,625 in costs and $195,000 in pre-judgment interest, noting the respondent's unreasonable litigation conduct increased the complexity and length of the proceedings.

The applicant husband brought a motion for the sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home.

The respondent wife agreed to the sale but sought a deferral until the husband's income was determined for spousal support purposes.

The court imputed the husband's income at $34,321 by adding back several personal and non-cash business expenses.

The court ordered the husband to pay temporary spousal support of $278 per month and ordered the matrimonial home to be listed and sold forthwith.

This ruling addresses endorsements from August 25 and 26, 2016, and associated costs, as well as the father's cross-motion regarding payment of certain household expenses.

The court varied a previous order concerning matrimonial home expenses, setting child support, and making no order for spousal support or mortgage payments, but requiring the husband to continue home insurance and the mother to pay the mobile account.

The court also addressed costs, noting divided success but criticizing the mother's unilateral conduct in arranging counselling for the child without notice to the father.

The wife was ordered to pay the husband $1,500 in fixed costs from her share of the matrimonial home proceeds.

The respondent father brought a motion for reunification counselling with his daughter, interim spousal support, interim disbursements, and an equalization payment advance.

The applicant mother opposed the relief.

The court found it had jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act to order reunification therapy and directed the parties to engage a specified therapist.

The court awarded the father interim spousal support of $500 per month but dismissed his claims for interim disbursements and an equalization advance, finding the mother lacked the means and the test for an advance was not met.

The York Region Children's Aid Society brought a motion to designate the respondent parents, J.H.V. and N.B., as special parties due to alleged mental incapacity in child protection proceedings.

The father, J.H.V., also brought a motion for various relief, including an extension of time to file an Answer and Plan of Care.

The court dismissed the Society's motion to designate the father as a special party, finding he possessed the mental capacity to represent himself, despite his argumentative and unfocused behaviour.

However, the court granted the motion to designate the mother, N.B., as a special party, citing her history of mental illness, disengagement, and inability to understand the risks and consequences of the proceedings.

The father's request for an extension of time for filing an Answer and Plan of Care was granted for both parents.

The parties, former cohabitants, brought cross-motions following their separation.

The respondent sought spousal support, return of personal property, and interim disbursements for legal fees.

The applicant sought the sale of a jointly held condominium.

The court ordered the applicant to pay interim spousal support of $2,350 monthly, with the respondent responsible for condominium common expenses and insurance.

The applicant was also ordered to return all condominium contents she had unilaterally removed.

The condominium was ordered to be sold, with proceeds held in trust.

The respondent's request for interim disbursements was dismissed.

The court also provided directions for financial disclosure and questioning.

This ruling addresses costs arising from two motions brought by the applicant father: one to vary a temporary access order and another to strike the respondent mother's pleadings.

The motions resulted in divided success, with the father obtaining increased supervised access but not unsupervised access, and the mother's pleadings not being struck.

The court found that both parties had not acted with the requisite maturity and incurred unnecessary legal costs.

Consequently, the court declined to award costs to either party, citing Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, to encourage future cooperation and discourage an inflexible approach to parenting.

The applicant mother sought an order to dispense with the respondent father's consent to sell their jointly owned residence and to strike his pleadings.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion to dispense with the mother's consent to sell the residence, to have the mother found in contempt, and to vary or set aside an order that had denied him the right to be heard.

The court varied the order to allow the father to be heard, provided detailed directions for the sale of the matrimonial home, including a mechanism for the father to proceed unilaterally if the mother failed to cooperate.

The court also varied the child access order to introduce gradual overnight access for the father, noting the mother's unilateral actions regarding the child's healthcare and lack of support for the father-child relationship.

The mother's motion to strike pleadings was dismissed, and the contempt motions were adjourned sine die.

The parties separated after a long marriage involving multiple relocations between Latvia and Canada.

The husband sought equalization of net family property, child support, and spousal support.

The wife argued that a marriage contract signed in Latvia excluded her property from equalization.

The court found that while a marriage contract existed, its language did not explicitly or implicitly exclude the equalization provisions of the Family Law Act.

The court valued the parties' foreign and domestic assets, ordering the wife to pay an equalization payment of $71,633.50 in installments.

The wife was granted sole custody of the youngest child, and the husband was ordered to pay $174 monthly in child support based on an imputed minimum wage income.

The applicant wife brought a motion for child and spousal support retroactive to the application date.

The respondent husband acknowledged child support but disputed spousal support, with the central issue being the determination of his qualifying support income from his self-employment through E-Limika Consulting Inc. The court found the husband failed to provide adequate and corroborated documentation for significant business expenses, leading to an imputation of income.

The court ordered retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, to be paid from the husband's share of matrimonial home sale proceeds held in trust.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings due to persistent non-compliance with financial disclosure orders in a family law proceeding involving custody, child support, and constructive trust claims.

Despite multiple court orders and extensions, the respondent provided incomplete disclosure.

The court reviewed the history of non-compliance but found that, by the time of the motion, the respondent had substantially satisfied his disclosure obligations.

Applying the principle that striking pleadings is a serious remedy reserved for exceptional circumstances, especially where child issues are involved, the court dismissed the applicant's motion, noting that the remaining non-disclosure primarily disadvantaged the respondent.

Costs were to be addressed separately.

The applicant wife brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, and to sever the divorce from corollary relief issues.

The court noted significant discrepancies and unreasonable spending in both parties' financial disclosures.

The court imputed an income of $54,000 to the respondent husband based on his undisclosed means of funding a monthly deficit.

The court ordered temporary child support based on the imputed income, denied temporary spousal support at this time, and granted the severance of the divorce on consent.

The unmarried parties, who cohabited and had two children, disputed the division of family realty and other issues after agreeing on custody and spousal support.

The court applied the joint family venture concept from Kerr v. Baranow to assess contributions to accumulated wealth, primarily two properties registered in the applicant father's name.

The court found the father's credibility lacking regarding financial contributions and income reporting.

A monetary award was deemed appropriate, with the mother receiving a 35% share of the net equity, adjusted for advances and a promissory note.

The court also determined child support arrears, ongoing child support, special expenses, and specific parenting schedule details for holidays and transfers.

The applicant father sought costs after the respondent mother failed to attend trial and did not submit costs arguments despite being served with the decision and costs submissions.

The court awarded the father $8,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, finding the amount fair and reasonable given the father's success and the mother's failure to participate in the costs process.

The court emphasized that costs rules aim to indemnify successful litigants, encourage settlement, and discourage inappropriate litigant behavior, including ignoring court processes.

The applicant wife sought to set aside a 2008 separation agreement, alleging the respondent husband deliberately misrepresented the value of his business interests at the date of marriage to eliminate his equalization payment obligation.

The court found the husband, an astute investor, intentionally failed to disclose that the market value of his holding company's investments was significantly lower than the book value he presented.

The separation agreement was set aside under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

The court determined the parties' net family properties, finding the husband's date of marriage business value was nil, and ordered him to pay an equalization payment of $1,055,758.

The court also awarded retroactive child support of $345,000 and compensatory spousal support of $475,000, imputing significant corporate pre-tax income to the husband.

The applicant father, convicted of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon against the respondent mother, sought supervised access to their two children, whom he had not seen for over five years.

The mother opposed, citing fear for her safety and the children's well-being, a position supported by the Children's Aid Society.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" test under the Children's Law Reform Act, found insufficient evidence that access would significantly benefit the children, particularly given the long period of no contact and the father's lack of remorse for his past actions.

The father's application for access was dismissed, but a prior restraining order against him was terminated, and he was granted rights to receive information about the children's welfare and to share his life and heritage with them annually.

The wife renewed a motion to strike the husband's pleadings for financial non-disclosure, specifically regarding the valuation of his business interests.

The court reviewed the husband's compliance with previous disclosure orders and found his explanation for non-compliance unsatisfactory, particularly his failure to value his business interests.

While the motion to strike was dismissed, the court ordered the husband to retain a Chartered Business Valuator within 30 days and ensure a report is delivered within five months.

The court also noted the husband's financial ability to meet these obligations and declined to award him costs.