David A. Jarvis

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking income imputation and retroactive and ongoing spousal support from the respondent husband.

The court declined to conduct a detailed income imputation inquiry or grant retroactive support on an interim motion, given the imminent trial and the complexity of the financial issues.

However, the court ordered the husband to pay ongoing temporary spousal support, including maintaining the wife's property expenses and an additional monthly sum, with tax efficiencies, until the final disposition of the proceedings.

The decision criticized both parties for their litigation conduct and the husband's failure to provide timely financial disclosure, emphasizing the need for efficiency and proportionality in family law cases.

This is a case management ruling in a high-conflict family law matter involving parenting, equalization, and support.

The court addressed the parties' failure to comply with filing directions for a combined Settlement/Trial Scheduling Conference, including lack of settlement conference documents, expert reports, and financial statements.

The ruling sets out strict timelines and directions for future steps, including motions regarding parenting time and expert appointment, OCL involvement, and preparation for a peremptory trial in May 2023, emphasizing the need to avoid further delay in the child's best interests.

The parties separated after a seven-year marriage.

The father sought joint decision-making and shared parenting time, while the mother sought sole decision-making and reduced parenting time for the father.

The court awarded joint decision-making, finding the mother could not be trusted with sole authority due to her history of restricting the father's access.

The child's primary residence remained with the mother.

The court imputed the self-employed father's income at $82,500 for child support purposes, rejecting his declared income due to unsubstantiated business deductions.

The father was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $146,104.18.

The mother was found entitled to non-compensatory spousal support, but no amount was awarded as priority was given to child support.

The applicant father sought primary residence of the parties' two children, or in the alternative, specified parenting time and authority for counselling for one child.

The respondent mother opposed, citing a history of domestic violence and alleging the children were negatively impacted.

The court noted serious parental conflict, allegations of domestic violence, and gatekeeping.

While not conclusively determining alienation, the court emphasized the need for quick action where alienation is suspected.

The court made temporary orders granting the mother primary residence and sole medical decision-making, and the father specified parenting time with one child (JS) under certain conditions.

No order was made for parenting time with the older child (AS) but it was encouraged.

The parties were ordered to engage a specific child psychologist for therapeutic treatment, with costs shared.

The court also issued orders regarding communication, recording, and social media use, and declined to award costs due to both parties exceeding practice direction limits.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's pleadings due to his persistent failure to comply with multiple court orders for financial disclosure.

The court found the father in breach of his disclosure obligations, noting his evasive and selective disclosure and purposely opaque financial situation.

Citing established jurisprudence on the fundamental nature of financial disclosure in family law, the court granted the mother's motion, struck the father's pleadings, granted leave for an uncontested trial, allowed the mother to amend her pleadings to seek a restraining order, and ordered the father to pay $7,500 in costs.

The applicant wife sought an order striking the respondent husband's pleadings or compelling disclosure and an expert meeting.

The respondent husband sought to vary a spousal support order and for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the wife's request to strike pleadings and her expert meeting request, but ordered reciprocal questioning with experts present.

The husband's motion to vary spousal support was dismissed, as he failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances or compelling evidence to warrant a variation of the temporary order.

The matrimonial home sale was resolved by consent.

The court declined to award costs to the wife, finding her rejection of expert collaboration unreasonable.

The father brought a motion to change a final order to terminate child support for the parties' adult child, who was attending university and receiving significant financial assistance from a Children's Aid Society and other third-party sources.

The mother sought to change terms related to section 7 expenses and claimed retroactive support.

The court found a material change in circumstances because the father and the court were previously unaware of the extent of the child's third-party funding.

Applying section 3(2) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court determined the presumptive table amount was inappropriate and adjusted the father's child support obligation, resulting in an overpayment credit of $30,216 owed by the mother.

The mother's claims were dismissed.

Following a previous decision determining the date of cohabitation, the court finalized the issues of spousal support and property distribution.

The court found the mother was entitled to needs-based spousal support for a limited period, terminating on December 31, 2021, and awarded her $23,009 net of tax.

The net sale proceeds of the parties' property were distributed according to the parties' agreement, with the mother receiving $64,584.40 and the father receiving $289,775.23.

The parties, who were unmarried and had one child, disputed the date of cohabitation, the division of proceeds from a jointly owned home, spousal support, and the return of an engagement ring.

The court found the parties began cohabiting on May 10, 2017, when the applicant was added to the respondent's auto insurance.

The court held that the presumption of resulting trust applied to the jointly owned home, dividing the proceeds 73% to the respondent and 27% to the applicant based on their respective contributions.

The applicant was awarded needs-based spousal support, and was permitted to keep the engagement ring or return it for a $14,000 credit.

The applicant father brought a motion to vaccinate the parties' twelve-year-old daughter, who has high-functioning autism, against the respondent mother's opposition.

The mother argued against urgency and sought to enforce a mediation clause in their separation agreement.

The court found the matter urgent due to the pandemic and systemic delays, and exercised its parens patriae jurisdiction to override the mediation clause.

Relying on judicial notice of public health guidance, the court determined that vaccination was in the child's best interests, dismissing the mother's objections based on personal research and natural immunity claims.

The father's motion was granted, and the mother was ordered to pay costs.

The applicant mother sought retroactive and ongoing child support, including section 7 expenses for post-secondary education, from the respondent father under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act.

The child resided with the mother in British Columbia while the father lived in Ontario.

The court found no evidence of an alleged oral agreement relieving the father of support obligations.

The court calculated the father's presumptive table support and his proportionate share of the child's university expenses, accounting for RESP withdrawals and periods the child spent with the father.

The father was ordered to pay $59,230 in child support arrears and $900 per month in ongoing support.

The mother brought a motion for child support, seeking to impute an income of $33,490 to the father.

The father brought a cross-motion to strike portions of the mother's affidavit for relying on unnamed third-party sources.

The court struck the offending paragraphs but found the father's financial evidence to be inconsistent and unreliable.

Noting the parties' history of fraudulent schemes and the father's failure to support the children despite having the ability to work, the court imputed the requested income and ordered the father to pay $835 monthly in child support.

This ruling addresses two motions brought by the applicant in a family law proceeding, which is intertwined with an ongoing construction lien action.

The applicant sought disclosure from the respondent, production of his former lawyer's file in the lien action, and an order to question non-parties.

The core dispute revolves around a settlement reached during a family law trial, which the applicant seeks to set aside, alleging misrepresentation by the respondent regarding his financial affairs and position in the lien action.

The court found that the respondent had waived solicitor-client privilege and ordered significant disclosure from him, including his former lawyer's file and communications with the non-parties.

However, the request to question the non-parties was denied as premature, pending the completion of the ordered disclosure.

The applicant mother sought to relocate with the parties' three children to Cleveland, Ohio, to live with her new spouse.

The respondent father opposed the relocation.

The court considered the children's views and preferences, which strongly favoured the move, alongside the history of the parents' relationship, allegations of family violence, and the mother's restrictive approach to the father's parenting time.

Despite concerns about the mother's willingness to foster the children's relationship with the father, the court found that refusing the relocation would pose a significant risk to the children's best interests given their strong alignment with the mother.

The relocation was permitted, with a detailed parenting plan ordered to ensure the father's ongoing involvement.

The father was also ordered to pay child support, including a significant amount for section 7 expense arrears, while the mother's claim for spousal support was dismissed without prejudice.

In a high-conflict bifurcated trial regarding parenting issues, the court found that the applicant mother had engaged in alienating behaviour that severely damaged the children's relationship with the respondent father.

However, due to the passage of time, the children's entrenched views, and the father's failure to cooperate with court-ordered reunification therapy, the court concluded that restoring the relationship was practically impossible.

The mother was granted sole parenting time and decision-making authority, with the father entitled to parenting time only as the children may wish.

The applicant wife brought a motion to remove the parties' family law arbitrator, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias and unequal treatment under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The wife's complaints stemmed from a series of procedural and costs awards made by the arbitrator during a high-conflict dispute over child support and parenting.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the arbitrator's decisions were balanced and contextually appropriate, and that the wife's dissatisfaction with the outcomes did not meet the extremely high evidentiary threshold required to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

This focused trial determined the valuation date for the equalization of net family properties in a family law proceeding.

The applicant husband sought a valuation date of December 15, 2015, while the respondent wife sought February 14, 2012.

The court, after assessing the parties' credibility and objective evidence regarding their cohabitation and intent to separate, rejected both proposed dates.

The court found that the wife continued to hold a reasonable prospect of resuming cohabitation until some point after December 15, 2015, and that the husband's August 18, 2013 letter from prison indicated his clear intent to end the marital relationship.

The court fixed the valuation date as August 18, 2013, which has implications for the husband's equalization claim potentially being statute-barred.

The applicant wife brought a motion for extensive financial disclosure from the respondent husband regarding his personal finances and interests in over twenty companies.

The court ordered the husband to provide the requested disclosure, including a proper financial statement, tax returns, and corporate records, by specified deadlines.

The court dismissed the wife's request for non-party production orders as premature.

The court also ordered the husband to retain a business valuation expert by a set date, failing which it would consider appointing the wife's expert as a court-appointed expert.

The parties brought competing motions in a family law proceeding.

The respondent husband sought summary judgment declaring the valuation date as June 30, 2008, while the applicant wife claimed the date was December 20, 2019.

The court dismissed the husband's motion, finding his evidence disingenuous and setting the valuation date at December 20, 2019.

The court granted the wife's motion for interim spousal support, imputing an income of $838,000 to the husband and ordering him to pay $25,000 per month.

The court also granted the wife leave to question the family's long-time lawyer as a non-party, but dismissed her request for interim disbursements without prejudice.

The moving party father brought a motion to vary a support order and for parenting time.

The responding party mother sought to dismiss the motion due to the father's serial non-compliance with previous court orders, including failure to pay nearly $200,000 in support arrears and costs.

The court found the father's motion thoroughly devoid of merit, noting his failure to comply with disclosure orders, his apparent bigamous marriage, and his hidden cash income.

The court dismissed the father's motion and ordered him to disclose details regarding his new marriage and residence, granting the mother leave to bring a contempt motion if he failed to comply.