David A. Jarvis

The mother brought a motion to strike the father's pleadings due to his persistent failure to comply with court orders regarding financial disclosure and payment of costs.

The court granted the motion to strike the pleadings, noting the father's cavalier attitude towards his obligations.

However, the court declined to immediately impute an income of $180,000 to the father as requested by the mother, instead giving him a final opportunity to provide proper corporate and personal tax disclosure.

The court also dismissed the mother's claim to set aside the property provisions of their separation agreement based on the father's non-disclosure of a tax refund, as the agreement contained a clear waiver of financial disclosure.

The applicant wife brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, interim disbursements, preservation orders, and to add the husband's father and his new company as parties.

The wife alleged the husband was hiding assets and intentionally bankrupting their previously successful business to avoid support obligations.

The husband claimed he and his business were insolvent.

The court found the husband's financial evidence suspicious and his conduct concerning, noting he paid creditors instead of supporting his family.

The court ordered $7,500 monthly in unallocated support, granted leave to add the father and his company as parties, and ordered various financial disclosures and preservation measures, but declined to impute an $800,000 income or order interim disbursements at this stage.

The applicant mother brought a motion to find the respondent father in contempt of a prior court order requiring his participation in reunification therapy and a section 30 assessment for their son.

The court found the father in contempt of the provisions requiring him to adhere to the therapy agreement and attend sessions, noting his deliberate and willful delay and refusal to cooperate.

The court dismissed the contempt allegations regarding communication with the therapist and payment of the assessor's retainer, as the latter is a payment order not enforceable by contempt under the Family Law Rules.

The father was ordered to pay a $25,000 fine, return the child to the mother, and was sentenced to 30 days imprisonment, which could be reduced or suspended upon compliance with specific conditions.

This trial addressed several financial issues arising from a marital breakdown, primarily concerning the equalization of net family property.

The central dispute was whether a $125,000 promissory note, signed by the wife in favour of her mother related to the transfer of a matrimonial home, constituted a deductible debt or a gift.

The court found the transfer was not a gift and discounted the promissory note's value to 10% for equalization purposes.

Other issues included the valuation of household contents, the treatment of income replacement benefits, and post-separation house expenses.

The court ultimately ordered the husband to pay the wife an equalization payment and contribution for house expenses.

This case involved a bifurcated, high-conflict six-day trial concerning the custody and access of three children.

The applicant mother and respondent father each claimed custody, with the children having resided with the mother since separation in 2012.

The primary dispute revolved around the re-establishment of the children's relationship with the father, with the mother proposing preconditions for reunification therapy (e.g., father undertaking anger management) and the father advocating for unconditional reunification therapy, aligning with the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court ordered reunification therapy for the two younger children, rejecting the mother's preconditions and establishing a detailed framework for the therapy process, including therapist selection, shared payment, and the therapist's authority over access timelines.

The children were to continue residing with the mother, and no immediate access order was made, pending the therapist's recommendations.

The respondent husband moved for an order to have his Canadian passport and other travel documents returned, or alternatively, for a declaration that he had complied with a previous support order by serving 90 days incarceration for non-payment.

The court found the husband's financial evidence to be riddled with inconsistencies and not credible, noting a significant discrepancy between his representations to a lending institution in 2014 and his current financial statements to the court.

The court dismissed the husband's motion, concluding that his true objective was to retrieve his passport and flee the jurisdiction, which would irreparably prejudice the applicant wife's support and equalization rights.

The applicant, maternal grandmother, sought monthly weekend unsupervised access to her granddaughter (MP) after MP's mother (applicant's daughter) committed suicide.

The respondent father did not oppose access in principle but insisted it be brief and supervised due to concerns about the applicant's past criminal behaviour, alleged alcohol abuse, and unsafe living conditions.

The court applied the two-part test for grandparent access, considering deference to parental decisions and the child's best interests.

The court found no positive grandparent-grandchild relationship sufficient to override parental deference and that the father had not acted arbitrarily.

The court ordered supervised access twice monthly for two hours, with a provision for an extended Christmas visit and a mechanism for the applicant to seek variation for more extended overnight access after six visits.

The applicant father moved for summary judgment to enforce an alleged settlement agreement in a family law dispute.

The court found that a settlement was contractually formed through an exchange of correspondence between counsel, as the respondent mother's purported revocation was not effectively communicated.

However, the court exercised its discretion to refuse enforcement of the settlement due to material changes in the children's circumstances, the mother's prior misconduct regarding their residency, and the paramount consideration of the children's best interests, which necessitated further investigation by the Children's Lawyer.

The father's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The respondent Estate Trustee moved to dismiss the applicant's proceedings due to persistent non-compliance with court orders, including disclosure and costs, and for want of prosecution over an eight-year period.

The applicant had failed to pay multiple costs awards and provide financial disclosure.

The court applied Family Law Rule 1(8) and found the applicant's non-compliance deliberate and an affront to the administration of justice.

The court also found irreparable prejudice to the Estate due to the respondent's death and the applicant's inordinate delay.

The application was dismissed for both non-compliance and want of prosecution.

The applicant mother sought full recovery costs of $62,939.39 after being largely successful in custody and parenting motions.

The respondent father sought costs payable in cause or limited to $10,500.

The court found the father acted in bad faith due to his conduct, including involving the child in litigation, non-compliance with orders, and making a baseless insinuation of judicial bias.

Despite the mother not making an offer to settle and her counsel's time appearing excessive, the court awarded the mother $45,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, reflecting disapproval of the father's conduct and a discount for the mother's omissions.

The request to enforce the award as a support order was declined.

The applicant husband sought to set aside a marriage contract signed shortly before the parties' 2004 marriage, arguing the respondent wife failed to make proper financial disclosure of her substantial trust and estate interests and that he did not understand the contract.

The court found the wife had adequately disclosed her net worth, even overestimating it, and that the husband had received independent legal advice and understood the nature and consequences of the agreement.

The court dismissed the application, finding no material misrepresentation, duress, or unconscionability to justify judicial intervention under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

The court addressed two motions concerning jurisdiction over custody and access of two children.

The applicant father initiated divorce proceedings in Ontario, claiming custody, while the respondent mother initiated parallel proceedings in Québec and disputed Ontario's jurisdiction.

The central issue was whether the children were habitually resident in Ontario, specifically whether the mother had agreed to a permanent change in residency or if it was time-limited.

The court found that the mother had knowingly agreed to the children residing with the father in Ontario without a time-limited condition, and her subsequent unilateral assertions of a temporary arrangement were not acknowledged or agreed to by the father.

Consequently, the court declared Ontario to be the children's habitual residence and assumed jurisdiction.

The father moved to vary child support orders and for the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The mother brought a cross-motion to strike the father's pleadings due to his failure to pay outstanding costs orders and significant child support arrears.

The court found the father lacked credibility regarding his financial affairs, citing inconsistent income declarations and social media postings.

Applying the three-pronged test for striking pleadings, the court found a triggering event in the father's wilful non-compliance.

As a remedy, the court granted the OCL appointment and ordered the father to pay all outstanding costs and arrears by a specific date.

If he complied, he could renew his motion to vary support; otherwise, his pleadings on non-parenting issues would be struck, allowing the mother to proceed with an uncontested trial on those matters.

The trial addressed property and spousal support issues between divorcing spouses.

The applicant husband sought a beneficial interest in the matrimonial home, an equalization payment, and spousal support.

The respondent wife sought an unequal division of net family properties and denied spousal support.

The court dismissed the husband's claims for a beneficial interest in the matrimonial home and spousal support, finding him not credible regarding his financial affairs.

The wife's claim for an unequal division of net family properties was also dismissed, as the circumstances did not meet the high threshold of unconscionability.

The wife was ordered to pay the husband an equalization payment of $87,171, to be satisfied from her share of the parties' jointly owned Jamaican properties.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, the mother brought a motion to continue a section 30 parenting assessment and to order reunification therapy for the parties and their youngest son.

The father brought a cross-motion to appoint a lawyer for the child or order a Voice of the Child Report.

The court found a history of order non-compliance by the father and determined that the child's estrangement from the mother required immediate intervention.

The court granted the mother's motion, ordering reunification therapy to commence immediately alongside the section 30 assessment, and dismissed the father's motion, finding that further involving the child in the litigation was not in his best interests.

The respondent husband brought a motion to remove the applicant wife's counsel of record due to a conflict of interest.

Prior to being retained by the wife, the wife's counsel had multiple discussions with the husband's counsel regarding the strategic use of confidential information related to the valuation of the wife's business interests.

Applying the test from MacDonald Estate v. Martin, the court found that confidential strategic information had been imparted and that a reasonably-informed member of the public would not be satisfied that no use of this information would occur.

The motion to remove counsel was granted.

The parties were involved in family law litigation where costs of a disclosure motion were reserved.

They subsequently agreed to mediation/arbitration and signed a comprehensive Separation Agreement settling all outstanding issues.

The respondent husband later sought a determination of the reserved costs.

The court held that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the issue of costs because the parties had comprehensively settled all of their outstanding issues, and the husband failed to raise the issue of reserved costs during the mediation or before signing the settlement documents.

The applicant father and respondent mother both sought sole custody of their five-year-old child.

The father had taken the child from the mother's care following a period where the mother struggled with substance abuse.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer recommended sole custody to the mother, noting her successful rehabilitation, stable housing, and the father's failure to facilitate access.

The court agreed, awarding sole custody to the mother and granting the father specified access.

The court also imputed minimum wage income to the intentionally unemployed father and ordered him to pay child support.

The wife sought costs of $48,221.92 following successful motions primarily regarding support, interim disbursements, and disclosure.

The husband opposed the amount but did not provide a comparative bill of costs.

The court found that the husband engaged in bad faith through a pattern of deceptive disclosure and non-disclosure regarding his financial circumstances.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the wife $35,000 in costs on a full recovery basis for the support issue, with $25,000 enforceable as a support order.

The parties, former spouses, brought competing motions in a long-running family law dispute.

The wife sought to stay the husband's motion to change support and possession orders due to his failure to pay a previously ordered equalization payment of nearly $400,000 and over $13,000 in costs.

The husband sought an order evicting the wife from the matrimonial home and leave to amend his motion to claim spousal support.

The court found the husband had no reasonable excuse for failing to pay the equalization and costs.

Relying on the Family Law Rules regarding failure to obey court orders, the court stayed the husband's motion to change until he paid the equalization judgment and costs.

If he complies, he may amend his pleadings and the wife must bring a motion to determine her right to possess the home.