David A. Jarvis

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion as unnecessary, finding that leave was not required.

The court directed the moving party to deliver a notice of appeal for a hearing to be scheduled after case management.

No costs were awarded as the responding party failed to provide a costs outline.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of R. Smith J. dated June 26, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for the return of the parties’ child to the Newmarket jurisdiction and for related parenting relief after the respondent mother unilaterally relocated with the child to Kitchener/Waterloo and enrolled him in a new school without the father's consent.

The court granted the father's motion, ordering the child's primary residence to remain in Newmarket, continued attendance at his former school, and established an equal parenting time schedule.

The court found the mother's allegations of family violence insufficient to justify the relocation at this preliminary stage and emphasized the child's best interests and stability.

Costs were awarded to the father.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and child support, while the respondent father opposed and sought sole decision-making himself.

The court ordered joint decision-making responsibility, adjusted parenting time, and imputed income to the father for child support purposes, ordering him to pay $2,150 monthly.

No costs were awarded due to divided success on the various issues.

The applicant sought costs for three motions in a family law proceeding: a non-depletion/Mareva motion, a disclosure motion, and a motion to vary support that the respondent abandoned.

The respondent failed to provide comparative bills of costs or make reasonable offers to settle.

The court awarded the applicant $48,000 in costs.

A third-party lawyer who was the target of the disclosure motion was also awarded $10,000 in costs, payable by the respondent.

This family law trial addressed the enforceability of an alleged separation agreement, equalization of net family properties, post-separation adjustments, occupation rent, and the sale of two properties.

The court found no binding agreement existed, criticizing the husband's credibility and delay tactics.

The matrimonial home and a New York property were ordered to be sold.

The wife was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $187,677, while the husband was ordered to pay occupation rent of $3,500 per month from March 1, 2021, along with associated property expenses.

The applicant wife and respondent husband separated after a 29-year marriage.

The trial addressed the equalization of net family properties, numerous exclusion claims primarily by the husband, unequal division, income determination, and spousal support.

The court found the husband's evidence regarding his financial affairs and exclusion claims to be largely unreliable, noting his failure to provide adequate disclosure and his history of non-compliance with court orders.

The court allowed some of the husband's exclusion claims where supported by documentary evidence but denied others due to commingling and lack of tracing.

The wife's claim for an unequal division of net family properties was dismissed.

The court imputed an annual income of $232,500 to the husband due to his inadequate disclosure and ordered him to pay $5,500 per month in spousal support, along with an equalization payment of $353,752.

This is a ruling on a motion to disqualify a witness, Gabrielle St. George, in ongoing matrimonial and civil litigation.

Vito Ierullo sought to call Ms. St. George, the estranged sister of Rae Marie Ierullo (referred to as Ms. Adragone), to provide evidence concerning a loan assignment, the transfer of a family home, and allegations of forgery and fraudulent documents.

Rae Marie Ierullo objected, arguing the proposed evidence was largely hearsay, lacked direct knowledge, and was motivated by ill-will.

The court found the evidence to be speculative, based on animus, and largely hearsay, concluding that its admission would unnecessarily expand the scope of the trial into collateral family and estate issues.

The motion to permit Ms. St. George to testify was dismissed.

The applicant, a former step-parent, sought a contact order with her former partner's child, who has Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The child's biological parents, who share equal parenting time and decision-making responsibility, opposed the contact and brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the application.

The court applied the principle of parental autonomy, finding that the parents' decision to end contact was reasonable and did not imperil the child's best interests.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, dismissing the application, and awarded costs to the parents.

In a bifurcated trial addressing outstanding financial issues following a 2012 separation, the court determined equalization, child support, and spousal support.

Both parties had significant credibility issues.

The court rejected the respondent's expert valuation of the applicant's law practice due to material information deficiencies and lack of disclosure.

Income was imputed to the respondent based on minimum wage, as he unreasonably persisted in unremunerative employment.

The respondent was ordered to pay child support arrears and a modest equalization payment, while the applicant was ordered to pay time-limited, non-compensatory spousal support.

The net result was a payment owed to the applicant, to be satisfied from trust funds held from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant wife brought a summary judgment motion seeking payment of $193,596.50 from the respondent husband, representing her share of a joint TD Waterhouse account that she contended was not included in their separation agreement's equalization payment.

The husband opposed, claiming the account was included and challenging the service of a Request to Admit.

The court found the husband was deemed to have admitted the facts in the Request to Admit due to his failure to respond.

Applying the summary judgment test, the court determined there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding the husband owed the wife the claimed amount.

The court also found the husband's procedural delays and misrepresentations lacked credibility.

The wife's motion was granted, and she was awarded the principal sum with interest and costs.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking primary residence and supervised parenting time for the children.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for child and spousal support and leave to file her responding pleadings.

The court dismissed the father's parenting motion, finding no credible evidence that the children were at risk in the mother's primary care and noting the prematurity of the request given an ongoing Office of the Children's Lawyer investigation.

The court granted the mother's motion for support, determining the father's income for support purposes and ordering child and spousal support payments.

Leave was also granted for the mother to file her pleadings without tax returns.

This mid-trial ruling addresses the qualification of an expert witness, D.J. Myles Martin, proposed by the applicant (Rae Marie Ierullo) in a combined family and civil trial concerning business valuations.

The respondent (Vito Ierullo) challenged the expert's qualifications.

The court applied the Mohan and White Burgess tests for expert admissibility, considering factors such as formal education, professional qualifications, experience, and independence.

The court declined to qualify the expert, citing his lack of formal CBV accreditation, limited litigation support experience, and an undisclosed social relationship with the applicant, which raised concerns about his objectivity and non-partisanship.

In a complex, combined family and civil proceeding, the husband brought motions to further amend his pleadings and compel third-party financial disclosure shortly before a rescheduled trial.

The court dismissed the majority of the requested amendments, finding them to be an attempt to retool his narrative and expand the issues on the eve of trial.

The court ordered the third parties to file an affidavit regarding the availability of the requested records but relieved them from the balance of the summons.

Finally, the court ordered the wife to pay $40,000 in costs thrown away for a previously adjourned trial date.

The court reviewed and recalculated the father's child support obligations for a child completing post-secondary education in British Columbia.

Following a previous order, updated income and expense information was provided.

The court adjusted the father's income for 2021 and 2022, calculated his presumptive table support and section 7 expense contributions, and determined the total arrears owed to the mother.

The father's ongoing child support obligation was terminated effective April 30, 2023, with a fixed monthly payment ordered toward the accumulated arrears.

The father brought a motion under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction seeking the return of the parties' two infant children from Ontario to Texas.

The mother conceded that the children were habitually resident in Texas but argued the Article 13(b) grave risk exception applied, alleging the father's alcohol abuse and erratic behavior created an intolerable situation.

The court found the mother's evidence, while credible regarding the father's problematic behavior, did not meet the high threshold for "grave risk" of physical or psychological harm or an intolerable situation as required by the Convention.

The court ordered the children's return to Texas, subject to certain undertakings by the father to ameliorate immediate risks and ensure the Texas justice system could address parenting issues.

The York Region Children’s Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to find two children in need of protection and place them in extended society care with no parental access.

The parents opposed, seeking the children's return.

The court reviewed the extensive history of child protection involvement with the parents, including multiple previous summary judgments concerning their other children, and found overwhelming evidence that the parents had failed to address long-standing concerns regarding their parenting capacity, mental health, and cooperation with services.

The motion was granted, finding the children in need of protection and ordering extended society care with no parental access, while allowing sibling access at the Society's discretion.

The respondent mother brought a motion to strike the applicant father's pleadings for alleged non-compliance with multiple financial disclosure orders spanning over four years.

The father argued substantial compliance and provided explanations for outstanding documents.

The court reviewed the father's history of non-compliance, including missed deadlines and delayed submissions, which was deemed "unreasonable litigation behaviour." Despite the father's significant delays and partial non-compliance, the court declined to strike his pleadings, emphasizing the high threshold for such a remedy and the need to consider the materiality of missing disclosure.

Instead, the court ordered the father to provide specific outstanding disclosure by a new deadline, stipulated that the trial judge would determine the extent of his participation if he failed to comply, and prohibited him from initiating any further steps in the proceeding pending trial.

The court awarded the mother $15,000 in all-inclusive costs due to the father's litigation conduct.

This ruling addresses a motion for temporary parenting arrangements for a two-year-old child in a high-conflict family law dispute.

The respondent father sought a triaged increase in parenting time leading to shared parenting, while the applicant mother, who had primary care, agreed to an increase in principle but disagreed on the timing and scope.

The court, noting the parties' extensive and detrimental conflict, ordered a staged increase in the father's parenting time, including overnights, while maintaining the mother's primary care, pending a s. 30 Children’s Law Reform Act assessment.

The decision also included orders for shared decision-making, communication protocols, shared costs for supervised access, and prohibitions against disparagement and social media posts.

The court declined to award costs, citing the parties' counterproductive litigation behaviour.