David A. Jarvis

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support from the respondent husband.

The court addressed the issues of commencement date and quantum of support, finding the wife's evidence more credible than the husband's, particularly regarding his income and extensive business interests.

Due to the husband's lack of transparent financial disclosure and the family's high-end lifestyle, the court imputed a significantly higher income to the husband than he declared and ordered him to pay interim spousal support.

The respondent brought a motion seeking an order for the applicant to contribute to joint debts and to vacate a jointly-owned cottage property.

The court dismissed the respondent's request for debt contribution, finding the applicant lacked the present ability to pay and that an accounting could be made at trial.

However, the court granted the applicant sole vacant possession of the cottage property, requiring him to assume responsibility for its ongoing costs and arrange insurance, dispensing with the respondent's consent for insurance.

The court also enjoined the respondent from disturbing the applicant's enjoyment of the property.

The applicant sought interim spousal support of $9,000 per month, while the respondent contended the appropriate amount was $4,370.

The court found both parties were not entirely candid regarding their financial disclosures.

After imputing incomes to both parties and considering their needs and ability to pay, the court ordered the respondent to pay $5,260 per month in temporary spousal support starting January 1, 2021.

The applicant was made responsible for cottage expenses, including a $500 monthly contribution to a line of credit.

Costs were reserved pending resolution of disclosure issues.

The applicant wife brought a motion for retroactive and ongoing interim spousal support.

The respondent husband opposed the quantum and sought to impute income to the wife.

The court declined to impute income to the wife at the interim stage, noting that such determinations are better left for trial.

The court ordered the husband to pay a lump sum of $10,728 for retroactive support for 2019 and ongoing monthly support of $3,575 based on his 2020 income.

The parties were scheduled to proceed with motions, but both filed affidavits and exhibits that grossly exceeded the page limitations set out in a prior Case Conference Order and the court's Notices to the Profession.

Neither party sought leave for the voluminous filings.

The court vacated the motions, holding counsel responsible for the non-compliance, and required the parties to seek leave via a Form 14B motion before the motions could be rescheduled.

The court also directed counsel to provide a copy of the endorsement to their clients and noted the court's ability to order lawyers not to charge fees for such work.

Following a family law trial, both parties sought costs.

The applicant claimed costs of $133,961.20, while the respondent claimed costs of $379,454.26.

The court found that the parties had spent between $500,000 and $600,000 litigating issues where they were only marginally apart in their settlement offers.

Concluding that both parties engaged in unreasonable litigation behaviour and incurred expenses grossly disproportionate to the value of the disputed issues, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The applicant wife brought a motion to find the respondent husband in breach of previous child support, spousal support, and costs orders, and to strike his pleadings.

The husband had accumulated over $52,000 in arrears and claimed impecuniosity due to the pandemic, despite maintaining his pre-separation lifestyle.

The court found the husband in breach of the orders but declined to immediately strike his pleadings, instead granting him a final opportunity to pay the outstanding arrears and costs by a specified date, failing which the wife could move to strike his pleadings on all non-parenting issues.

The mother brought a motion for parenting and child support, and the father brought a cross-motion for parenting.

The court granted the mother primary care on a without prejudice basis, with joint decision-making.

The father's parenting time was modestly expanded.

Due to the mother's concerns about the father's adherence to Covid-19 guidelines and the maternal grandfather's high-risk health status, the court imposed strict Covid-19 social circle protocols based on Rocheleau v Lajoie.

For child support, the court imputed an annual income of $245,000 to the self-employed father based on his own prior estimate, ordering him to pay $3,217 monthly.

The parties were scheduled for a settlement conference regarding equalization of net family properties and support.

Both parties filed extensive briefs but failed to comply with mandatory Family Law Rules regarding financial statements and net family property statements.

Both parties also claimed outstanding disclosure from the other.

The court held that a settlement conference is not the appropriate forum to resolve extensive disclosure disputes and that parties must come prepared and fully compliant with the rules.

The settlement conference was adjourned, with terms set for scheduling any future conference, including the requirement to resolve disclosure issues by motion first.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking custody of the parties' two children and an order preventing their removal from Ontario.

The parties separated after the respondent mother and children moved to a women's shelter due to domestic violence concerns.

The court declined to make a custody order or alter the current residency arrangements on an emergency basis, noting the mother had surrendered the children's passports to her counsel.

The court ordered that the children primarily reside with the mother on a without prejudice basis, varied a previous non-removal order to include the Greater Toronto Area, and granted the father daily telephone or Skype access with conditions.

The mother, as the successful party on a long motion regarding parenting issues, sought full recovery costs of $45,308.42.

The father argued no costs should be awarded due to his limited financial resources, or alternatively, costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the father's conduct unreasonable and that he should have accepted the mother's offer to settle.

The court awarded the mother fixed costs of $30,000, payable in installments, noting that impecuniosity does not excuse unreasonable litigation conduct.

The applicant mother brought an urgent, uncontested motion for parenting orders regarding the parties' three children following a separation involving allegations of physical violence.

The mother, who wished to return to Pakistan, surrendered her and the children's passports to her lawyer.

Based on the mother's unchallenged evidence, the court granted the requested relief, deemed the children habitually resident in Ontario, prohibited their removal from the province, and adjourned the matter to a case conference.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding with a bifurcated trial, the court issued a directions ruling after significant delays by both parties.

The parenting trial had concluded its evidentiary phase but was paused for reunification therapy that never occurred, while the financial trial was repeatedly delayed due to disclosure disputes and lack of preparation.

The court directed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to update its clinical investigation regarding the children.

For the financial issues, the court ordered the parties to exchange updated financial statements and attend a peremptory settlement conference to ensure the matter becomes trial-ready.

The applicant wife brought an urgent motion without notice for a non-dissipation order freezing the respondent husband's assets and for the release of trust funds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the request for a non-dissipation order, noting that most of the alleged deceptive financial conduct pre-dated a September 2019 settlement conference and there was no reasonable explanation for the delay in seeking relief.

The court set a timetable for the parties to file materials regarding the release of the trust funds, which will be determined in writing.

The respondent wife brought a motion to annul the applicant husband's assignment in bankruptcy or consolidate the bankruptcy proceedings with their family law proceedings.

Following a teleconference where the husband did not participate, the court issued procedural directions setting a timetable for the delivery of responding materials by the Trustee, the Department of Justice, and the husband, and ordered the motion to proceed in writing.

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary shared parenting and overnight access to the parties' three children.

The respondent mother opposed the relief, citing concerns about the father's history of substance abuse and seeking to maintain the status quo where the children primarily resided with her.

The court declined to order temporary shared custody due to conflicting affidavit evidence, ordering that the children continue to primarily reside with the mother pending a section 30 assessment.

The court granted the mother exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and ordered the father to undergo bi-weekly urine testing and a hair follicle test as a precondition to commencing overnight parenting time.

The court reconsidered an equalization payment of $66,200 owed by the wife to the husband, following an initial judgment and addendum.

The reconsideration focused on whether equalizing net family properties would be unconscionable under sections 5(6)(e) and (h) of the Family Law Act, particularly given the short marriage duration (three years), the wife's non-financial contributions, and the market-driven appreciation of her Sri Lankan properties.

The court found that ordering the original payment would be unconscionable under s. 5(6)(e) due to the disproportionately large amount relative to the cohabitation period and the nature of the asset appreciation.

However, the court was not persuaded that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic met the high evidentiary onus for unconscionability under s. 5(6)(h).

Consequently, the equalization payment was reduced from $66,200 to $9,500, reflecting a prorated amount based on the cohabitation period and the wife's contributions.

The applicant mother sought orders to implement parenting schedules and related relief, including police enforcement, due to the respondent father's alleged withholding of their child, EM, and non-compliance with agreements.

The father brought an irregular cross-motion for temporary custody.

The court found the father engaged in parental alienation tactics, consistently disregarded agreements, and failed to support the child's relationship with the mother.

The child, diagnosed with ADHD and a learning disability, exhibited poor school attendance and academic performance while in the father's care.

The court dismissed the father's cross-motion and granted the mother temporary sole custody, sole decision-making authority for EM's healthcare and schooling, and ordered reunification therapy, with police enforcement of the custody order.

The respondent mother brought a second urgent motion alleging that the applicant father was actively undermining a previous court order regarding the child's daycare arrangements and had threatened the daycare operators.

The court granted the mother's requested relief, emphasizing the seriousness of non-compliance with court orders and warning the father about potential contempt findings and costs.

The father was given an opportunity to file an affidavit in response to the allegations.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking disclosure from the respondent husband regarding their landscaping business and for support.

The parties had a temporary consent order for winding up the business and selling the matrimonial home.

The wife alleged the husband failed to comply with disclosure obligations and continued to operate a business in his own name, potentially diverting cash income.

The court found the husband failed to provide adequate disclosure and ordered specific disclosure with a daily penalty for non-compliance.

The court also ordered the husband to pay interim spousal support and contribute to matrimonial home expenses, noting the absence of updated financial statements.