Donna Anne Wowk

The moving party brought a motion seeking relief for the responding party's flagrant breaches of a final consent order, including failure to pay child and spousal support.

The responding party, a wealthy businessman, did not attend the motion and sent hostile messages to the moving party.

The court found the responding party in breach and applied Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, ordering him to pay all arrears and provide security within 72 hours.

The court also imposed a $1,000 daily penalty for continued non-compliance and awarded full indemnity costs due to the responding party's bad faith.

The husband moved to stay portions of a Superior Court order that declared the wife a 50% joint owner of the matrimonial home and directed its sale, pending a decision on his motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay: serious question, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience.

While the court found a serious question, the husband failed to establish irreparable harm, as any financial loss could be quantified, and the argument regarding children's disruption was not persuasive given their living situation.

The balance of convenience decisively favoured the wife, who needed access to the equity in the matrimonial home to secure stable housing for herself and the children.

Consequently, the motion to stay was dismissed.

Following an appeal of a family law arbitration award where success was divided, both parties sought costs of the appeal.

The applicant sought $70,000 and the respondent sought $111,734.71.

The court reviewed the principles of costs under the Family Law Rules, including the impact of offers to settle and divided success.

Finding that neither party was predominantly successful and neither acted unreasonably or in bad faith, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs of the appeal.

The court also reduced the costs of the arbitration payable by the applicant to the respondent from $75,000 to $49,150 to reflect the appellate outcome.

The parties appealed an arbitrator's award regarding financial issues following their separation.

The central issues involved the calculation of the respondent's equalization payment, including the treatment of inherited properties and title to the matrimonial home, as well as the calculation of his income for spousal and child support purposes.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the arbitrator erred in allowing the respondent to claim sole ownership of the matrimonial home, applying the doctrines of issue estoppel and res judicata based on a prior consent award for its sale.

The court also corrected the arbitrator's calculation of the respondent's income for support purposes, but otherwise dismissed the appeals regarding the treatment of inherited property, spousal support duration, and prejudgment interest.

The applicant mother and respondent father both appealed an arbitration award concerning parenting and financial issues.

The mother appealed the arbitrator's decision requiring her to return with the children from Indiana to Ontario, arguing it failed to prioritize the children's best interests and the maximum contact principle.

The father appealed the arbitrator's decision granting the mother primary care and final decision-making authority upon their return to Ontario.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed both appeals regarding the parenting issues, finding the arbitrator made no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of mixed fact and law.

The court upheld the return to Ontario and the parenting arrangements, while reserving judgment on the financial issues.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The respondent was awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $50,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicants, foster parents who had cared for a three-year-old child since birth, sought judicial review of a Child and Family Services Review Board decision that overruled the Children's Aid Society's approval of their adoption application.

The Board had directed the child be placed with the respondents, who had previously adopted two of the child's maternal half-siblings, citing the importance of the child's Métis heritage and biological siblings.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision unreasonable, noting it applied differential standards to the evidence, ignored the child's strong bond with the foster family, and relied on speculation regarding the child's ability to transition to a new home.

The application for judicial review was allowed, the Board's decision was quashed, and the Society's decision approving the applicants' adoption was restored.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision determining the parties' date of separation for the purpose of property equalization.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to properly assess credibility, made palpable and overriding errors of fact, and demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments were clear, the alleged factual errors were minor and not overriding, and the bias allegation was completely unfounded.

The applicant mother appealed an arbitration award concerning parenting and financial matters, specifically moving to stay the parenting provisions requiring the children's return to Ontario by May 31, 2020, and to admit fresh evidence.

The respondent father resisted the motion and sought to admit his own fresh evidence.

The court granted a stay of the parenting provisions until the completion of the appeal, finding a serious issue, irreparable harm to the children's best interests due to the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on specialized treatment and transition plans, and a balance of convenience favouring the stay.

The court also admitted relevant fresh evidence from both parties, adopting a flexible approach due to the children's best interests and risk of harm.

This decision addresses costs following two motions concerning matrimonial property and spousal support.

The court had ordered the applicant to purchase the matrimonial property and increased spousal support, though not to the extent sought by the applicant.

The respondent was granted leave to sell two properties.

The court found success to be mixed, with the applicant slightly more successful, and attributed greater fault for the delay in selling the matrimonial home to the respondent.

However, no bad faith was found on either side, and the applicant did not achieve a result more favourable than her offer to settle.

The respondent was ordered to pay fixed costs of $10,000 to the applicant.

The court heard two motions concerning the sale of the former matrimonial residence and adjustments to spousal support.

The respondent also sought to sell a jointly held Florida property and two Ontario properties.

The court found the respondent primarily at fault for the delay in selling the matrimonial home and ordered the applicant to purchase the respondent's interest in it under specific terms.

Interim spousal support was varied, with the respondent's income assessed at $200,000 and the applicant's at $20,000, resulting in a monthly payment of $3,675.

The non-depletion order was varied to permit the respondent to sell other properties, subject to conditions preventing asset dissipation.

The court declined jurisdiction over the sale of the Florida property and ordered the applicant to provide an accounting of chattels sold.

The court awarded the Respondent mother, Evelyn Walsh, full recovery costs of $420,000.00 against the Applicant father, Joshua Louis Goldstein, following a 12-day custody and access trial.

The award was based on the father's bad faith and unreasonable conduct throughout the litigation, including making false allegations, misleading the court, and unduly complicating issues, as well as the mother beating her Rule 18 Offer to Settle.

The court found the father's conduct permeated the litigation, driving up legal fees, and that his truncated Bill of Costs was disingenuous.

The applicant moved in writing to correct a previous endorsement regarding temporary child and spousal support.

The court acknowledged a miscalculation in the respondent's imputed income and increased child support to $10,500 per month, while amending temporary spousal support to $7,500 per month.

The respondent also moved to set a date to continue a settlement conference, which the court granted, directing the parties to assignment court to schedule the conference.

Following cross-motions where success was divided, both parties sought costs.

The court found that the applicant acted in bad faith by seeking a last-minute adjournment and bringing meritless motions to prolong her retention of the matrimonial home.

The respondent was awarded costs of $50,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, which included a reduction to reflect the applicant's success on support issues.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions and cross-motions in a family law dispute following a 2014 separation.

The court dismissed the Applicant's requests for an adjournment, a voice of the child report, a preservation order against the Respondent's assets, and further disclosure.

It also dismissed the Respondent's request for a further parenting assessment.

The court granted the Applicant's motion to increase temporary child support to $9,277 per month and temporary spousal support to $8,500 per month, based on the Respondent's averaged income of $750,000.

Retroactive support was left for trial.

A support deduction order was issued, and all other relief sought was dismissed.

The Respondent moved for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home to facilitate its sale, offering a $600,000 equalization advance and an increase in temporary spousal support.

The Applicant resisted, citing the children's best interests and difficulty finding alternative accommodation.

The court granted the Respondent's motion, finding that the delay was not due to the Respondent's disclosure issues, that moving was inevitable for the children, and that the Applicant would be able to find suitable housing with the provided funds and support.

The parties, who never married, sought a final determination of custody, access, and child support for their three-year-old child.

The applicant father sought joint custody and a continuation of a week-about schedule in Toronto, while the respondent mother sought sole custody and primary residence in Buffalo.

The court found that the applicant had previously misled the court to obtain an ex parte custody order and consistently failed to consult the respondent on major decisions, demonstrating an inability to co-parent effectively.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court awarded sole custody and primary residence to the respondent mother, with a generous access schedule for the applicant father.

The parties were ordered to share section 7 expenses proportionate to their incomes.

This is a costs endorsement following motions heard on September 24, 2018.

Both the applicant and the respondent requested their costs, each claiming to be the more reasonable and successful party.

The court found that neither party could truly claim success, as six issues were addressed in the prior decision with success being divided.

The court discouraged the practice of dissecting each issue to determine reasonableness for costs.

Given the mixed success, the court ordered no costs to either party.

This decision addresses interlocutory motions concerning spousal support, property re-mortgaging, interim disbursements for business valuation, health benefits, property access, and asset dissipation.

The court dismissed the applicant's request to clarify a spousal support order, finding no material change in circumstances from mortgage renegotiation.

It ordered the applicant to sign re-mortgaging documents.

The court granted the applicant's request for $56,500 in interim disbursements for a business valuation and ordered the respondent to reinstate health coverage and reimburse expenses.

The respondent was permitted to attend the jointly owned property under specific conditions, but his request for a further exception to a non-dissipation order for living expenses was denied, as he could draw a salary from his corporations.

The Applicant sought various interim orders including spousal and child support, retroactive support, section 7 expenses, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, payment to a joint line of credit, interim disbursement, sale of a yacht, and a preservation order.

The Respondent brought a cross-motion to strike parts of the Applicant's affidavit and compel undertakings.

The court imputed an income of $300,000 to the Respondent for interim support purposes, declined to impute income to the Applicant, and ordered temporary spousal support of $7,000/month and child support of $2,878/month.

Retroactive support was adjourned to trial.

The court denied the interim disbursement request but ordered the sale of the yacht with net proceeds split equally after paying a loan.

Both parties were ordered to provide outstanding disclosure and undertakings.

A preservation order was continued with an added notice requirement for the Respondent's business shares.

The Respondent's request to strike evidence was dismissed.