David K. Sherr

The moving party brought a motion for a stay pending the appeal of a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

In an uncontested trial following the striking of the respondent's pleadings, the applicant sought child support for her nephew, for whom she is the primary caregiver.

The court imputed income to the respondent at a minimum wage level from 2024 onward, finding he failed to provide adequate income disclosure, was likely surreptitiously employed while receiving Ontario Works, and provided no medical or educational reason for under-employment.

The respondent was ordered to pay $11,088.63 in retroactive support, ongoing monthly support of $281.54, and $14,690 in enhanced costs due to his unreasonable conduct.

The respondent husband brought a motion for partition and sale of the matrimonial home to obtain funds for legal expenses and to continue making support payments.

The applicant wife opposed the motion, arguing that she had established a prima facie case for a vesting order to satisfy her claims for equalization and spousal support, and that the sale would prejudice her rights.

The court found that the wife had established a prima facie case for substantial equalization and retroactive spousal support payments exceeding the husband's equity in the home, and that the wife would suffer prejudice if the home were sold before trial.

The motion was dismissed.

This decision concerns the return of an urgent motion made without notice by Dana-Paula Caringi, seeking preservation and disclosure orders regarding property and bank accounts associated with Mauro Caringi and a third party, Ms. Brown, in the context of family law proceedings.

The court reviews the orders previously granted without notice, analyzes the legal basis for preservation and Norwich orders, and ultimately declines to grant the requested relief, finding the necessary legal and evidentiary thresholds unmet.

The court also addresses costs and removes the matter from the trial list.

The appellant, Manjunath C. Kuppa, appealed an order striking his pleadings (and those of two other respondents) due to persistent non-compliance with court orders and non-disclosure in a family law proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that striking pleadings was an appropriate remedy in these exceptional circumstances, consistent with the Family Law Rules' objective of dealing with cases justly, especially when lesser remedies had proven futile.

The court also ordered the appellant to pay costs on a full indemnity basis.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The Applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis after successfully striking the Respondents' pleading due to their bad faith conduct, including deliberate non-disclosure and non-compliance with court orders.

The Respondents argued for no costs or a significantly reduced amount.

The court awarded full indemnity costs, finding the Respondents' conduct warranted a punitive award, but reduced the claimed amount due to some excessive hours and the abandonment of a contempt motion.

The costs were awarded jointly and severally against all Respondents due to their concerted efforts to obstruct disclosure.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the pleadings of the respondent and two added respondents for persistent and deliberate non-compliance with numerous court orders.

These orders included requirements for financial disclosure, payment of spousal support and costs, and adherence to preservation orders related to the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found the respondents' conduct to be in bad faith, rising to the level of fraudulent misconduct, aimed at frustrating the applicant's financial claims.

Given the egregious nature of the breaches and the futility of lesser remedies, the court granted the motion, striking the respondents' pleadings and allowing the applicant to proceed to an uncontested trial.

The third parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Doi J. dated May 13, 2022.

The Divisional Court reviewed the motion in writing.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000, payable within 30 days.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings due to his failure to comply with numerous court orders regarding spousal support, costs, and financial disclosure.

The respondent claimed impecuniosity, which the court rejected, finding he had significant equity in the former matrimonial home and led a lavish lifestyle.

The court held that the respondent's non-compliance was wilful.

Recognizing that striking pleadings is a remedy of last resort, the court ordered the respondent to pay all outstanding costs and spousal support arrears within 150 days, failing which the applicant was granted leave to renew her motion to strike his pleadings and proceed to an uncontested trial.

This appeal arose from a family law dispute concerning spousal support and costs.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's refusal to impute a higher income to the respondent, the quantum of spousal support awarded at the high-end of the guidelines, and the award of full recovery costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding income imputation or her legal conclusions on spousal support and costs.

The court affirmed the trial judge's discretion and the high threshold for appellate intervention on factual matters.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary ongoing child support, retroactive child support arrears, and financial disclosure.

The court ordered temporary child support based on the respondent father's actual income of $39,600, declining to impute a higher income.

The issue of retroactive child support was adjourned to trial due to the complex financial history, including the applicant's unilateral refinancing of the matrimonial home.

The court ordered a process for resolving the remaining disclosure issues and awarded the applicant $7,000 in costs based on divided success.

The applicant father brought a motion to expand his parenting time with the parties' three-year-old child to include overnight visits, aiming for a 50/50 schedule.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, citing allegations of past family violence and requesting a mental health assessment of the applicant.

The court considered the best interests of the child under the Divorce Act, noting that while there was evidence of high conflict and some violence during cohabitation, there were no concerns regarding the applicant's parenting post-separation.

The court granted the motion in part, expanding the applicant's parenting time to include two overnights per week on an interim basis, but declined to order a 50/50 schedule to maintain stability for the child.

The applicant father brought a motion for increased and unsupervised parenting time with the parties' young child.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for interim spousal and child support.

The mother alleged a history of severe domestic violence and raised concerns about a potential murder-suicide, arguing that the father's parenting time must remain supervised.

The court found that while there was some evidentiary basis for the abuse allegations, there was no evidence that the father posed a risk to the child.

The court ordered a gradual transition from third-party supervision to supervision by the paternal grandmother, and then to unsupervised parenting time of 30 hours per week.

On the cross-motion, the court found the mother was entitled to interim support and ordered the father to pay $1,739 monthly in spousal support and $855 monthly in child support based on his 2018 income of $93,035, declining to impute higher income to him or any income to the mother at this interim stage.

The father brought a motion to change a 2016 joint custody order, initially seeking decision-making authority over the child's education, but later amending to seek sole custody and primary residence.

The mother opposed the motion and sought to reinstate an earlier 2013 order granting her sole custody.

The court found material changes in circumstances, including the mother's refusal to allow the child to participate in school activities, increasingly disturbing allegations by the mother (including unfounded claims of poisoning), the mother's refusal to cooperate with the Children's Lawyer, and evidence of the child's deteriorating mental health and distress.

The court granted the father sole custody with access to the mother in the father's discretion, ordered counselling for the child, and directed the Children's Aid Society to support the father in managing access and considering supervised access if necessary.

The Applicant, Ms. Diamond, sought full recovery of $348,624 in legal and expert fees following her success on key issues of spousal support, income for support, and pension division after an 11-day trial.

The Respondent, Mr. Berman, argued for divided success and sought $74,623 in costs.

The court addressed Mr. Berman's excessive costs submissions, affirming the importance of page limits.

It found Ms. Diamond entitled to costs due to her overall success and Mr. Berman's unreasonable litigation conduct, including his self-representation for much of the proceeding and rigid positions.

However, the court declined to award Mr. Berman costs and reduced Ms. Diamond's claim, finding her unreasonable in failing to accept a mid-trial severable offer regarding pension division.

The court also established a general principle against recovering costs for multiple counsel.

Ms. Diamond was ultimately awarded $180,800 in costs.

This decision addresses urgent motions concerning child access during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Following a previous order for the respondent to have access, the applicant failed to comply, leading the respondent to seek enforcement and directions for contempt.

The applicant argued that formal orders had not been served and requested an independent assessment of the child's wishes.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments, finding that she did not take sufficient steps to ensure access and that the child's alleged unwillingness was not independent.

The court emphasized the custodial parent's positive obligation to facilitate access and issued orders for continued access, with police enforcement if necessary, along with procedural directions for future hearings and costs.

The Respondent father brought an urgent motion to restore in-person access to the child, which the Applicant mother had unilaterally suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic and concerns for her elderly parents and the child's health.

The Applicant brought a cross-motion to formalize the video-only access.

The court found the Respondent's motion urgent, rejected the Applicant's reasons for withholding access, and granted the Respondent's motion, dismissing the Applicant's cross-motion.

The court emphasized the importance of in-person contact and adherence to court orders, noting the Applicant's history of non-compliance.

The case involved a high-conflict family law trial following a 27-year marriage.

Key issues included spousal support entitlement and quantum, imputation of income to the applicant, division of vehicles, and the division of a federal pension at source.

The court found the applicant entitled to high-range spousal support, declined to impute additional income to her, and determined the "normal retirement date" for pension valuation purposes to be age 60 for Group 1 members of the Public Service Superannuation Act.

The court also addressed equalization payments, pre-judgment interest, and post-separation adjustments.

The applicant sought interim interim retroactive and ongoing spousal support, and an advance on her equalization payment for legal fees.

The respondent sought to sever the divorce from corollary relief.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $250,000 and attributed no income to the applicant, ordering $9,500 per month in spousal support retroactively from January 1, 2018, with credit for amounts already paid.

The request for an advance payment of costs was denied due to insufficient evidence of necessity and the applicant's financial resources.

The court granted the severance of the divorce, finding no legal disadvantage to the applicant.