David Rappaport

The moving party sought review of a motion judge's order refusing an extension of time to file a notice of appeal in high-conflict family litigation.

The court applied the deferential standard under s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act and confirmed intervention is limited to legal error, error in principle, or an unreasonable result.

It held the motion judge applied the correct legal framework, including the best interests of the children as the overarching consideration.

The court found no error in assessing the proposed appeal's limited merit, the five-month delay, and prejudice from continued uncertainty in parenting arrangements.

The review motion was dismissed with costs.

This decision resolves a high-conflict family law dispute between Harry James Clarke and Melissa Joy Denyes regarding parenting time, decision-making, relocation, child support, section 7 expenses, spousal support, and post-separation adjustments for their two children, one of whom has special needs.

The court dismisses the respondent's request to relocate with the children to Nova Scotia, orders equal parenting time on a 2-2-5-5 schedule, and grants the applicant sole decision-making responsibility.

Child support is set based on the parties' incomes, and section 7 expenses are to be shared equally.

The respondent's claims for spousal support and post-separation adjustments are dismissed, while the applicant is awarded certain retroactive section 7 expenses and post-separation adjustments.

The court imposes additional compliance measures due to the respondent's litigation conduct.

The parties, former spouses and equal partners in two farming businesses, brought cross-motions for interim relief.

The Applicant sought dissolution of the partnership, winding up of the corporation, bifurcation of the trial, and sale of a jointly owned property.

The Respondent sought orders related to financial management, access to business records and accounts, and remedies for alleged oppression and breach of fiduciary duty by the Applicant.

The court dismissed all of the Applicant's motions, finding them premature or inappropriate for interim relief.

The court granted significant portions of the Respondent's motion, finding that the Applicant had engaged in conduct that unfairly disregarded his interests and breached her fiduciary duties, particularly concerning financial transparency and transactions with family members.

Temporary orders were issued to ensure the Respondent's access to financial information and to restrict the Applicant's unilateral financial decisions, especially those involving family.

This motion addresses a dispute between unmarried parents regarding parenting time, a s.30 parenting assessment, and s.7 special expenses for their two children, one of whom has significant special needs (autism, intellectual disability, ADHD).

The applicant father sought to increase his parenting time, obtain a s.30 assessment, and establish ancillary parenting orders.

The respondent mother opposed these changes and sought reimbursement for past s.7 expenses and prepayment for future ones.

The court found a material change in circumstances, increased the father's temporary parenting time, ordered a s.30 assessment (to be paid by the father), and granted several ancillary parenting orders.

The court also ordered reconciliation of past s.7 expenses, disallowing some of the mother's claims, and dismissed her request for prepayment of future s.7 expenses, establishing a consent-based mechanism instead.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's order finding him in contempt for failing to sign an assessor's retainer, prohibiting him from filing further motions without leave, granting the respondent mother sole decision-making responsibility, and delegating treatment authority for their child.

The Court of Appeal upheld the contempt finding and the grant of sole decision-making authority, finding the father's attempts to modify the retainer were not minor and that the mother's authority was justified by the father's non-compliance.

However, the court found the prohibition on filing further motions without leave was an overreach, as the father was not a vexatious litigant and such a term was not supported by the record, especially given potential future enforcement issues regarding parenting time.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The applicant mother and respondent father brought cross-motions for an interim parenting schedule for their 13-year-old child.

The mother sought an equal shared parenting schedule, while the father sought a schedule giving the mother approximately 35% of parenting time.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the child's recent ADHD and anxiety diagnoses, as well as the mother's return to Toronto from Rhode Island to support the child.

Considering the child's expressed preference for more time with the mother and the need for stability, the court ordered an interim week-about shared parenting schedule.

Following a motion and cross-motion with divided success, the applicant sought costs of $25,000.

The respondent argued for no costs or costs reserved, citing limited means and divided success.

The court found the applicant was presumed entitled to costs as the respondent's motion was dismissed and the applicant achieved some success.

The court fixed costs at $12,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable by the respondent within 120 days due to his limited means.

The parties were involved in a family law dispute over custody and access.

The applicant obtained an ex parte Anton Piller order and an order for supervised access based on evidence from a witness (C.B.W.) alleging the respondent solicited sexual services from minors.

The respondent brought a motion to question C.B.W. before filing responding evidence, citing concerns about self-incrimination in an ongoing police investigation.

The applicant brought a cross-motion to compel the respondent to file responding evidence and attend questioning.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding it would be unfair to allow questioning without reply evidence.

The court granted the applicant's motion, ordering the respondent to file responding affidavits and attend questioning, holding that the best interests of the child outweighed the respondent's self-incrimination concerns.

The court determined costs for previous motions where the applicant mother's motion was dismissed and the respondent father's responding motion was successful.

The father sought full recovery costs due to the mother's unreasonable behaviour and his offer to settle being exceeded.

The court found the mother's conduct unreasonable, including ignoring a separation agreement and proposing unsafe travel for children during COVID-19, but not rising to bad faith.

Considering the father's superior offer to settle and the mother's unreasonable conduct, the court fixed the father's costs at $6,500, inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking to travel with the parties' three children to Texas for her summer parenting time, despite a separation agreement requiring the children's residence to remain in Toronto.

The respondent father opposed the motion due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the closure of the Canada-US border, and concerns that the mother intended to permanently relocate the children to Texas.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding that non-essential travel to a COVID-19 hotspot would recklessly expose the children to risk and was not in their best interests.

The court ordered that the children remain in Canada and adopted the father's proposed summer schedule.

A child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society against three respondents concerning three children: A. (age 17), N. (age 14), and S. (age 5).

The mother, J.K.V., suffers from untreated mental illness including bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, and substance abuse issues.

The court found all three children to be in need of protection based on patterns of neglect, failure to provide adequate care, supervision, and protection.

The court made A. a Crown Ward, placed N. in his father's care subject to a seven-month supervision order, and granted S.'s father sole custody with no access for the mother.

The decision emphasizes the serious impact of untreated parental mental illness on child protection outcomes and the court's duty to prioritize children's best interests over parental rights.