Donna Anne Wowk

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.

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.

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.

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.

This interim motion addressed parental alienation in a custody dispute involving two children.

The court found clear evidence that the children had been alienated from the respondent mother through the combined efforts of the applicant father and Caroline Hay, a former nanny with a close bond to the children.

The court emphasized the need for immediate action in parental alienation cases.

It ordered the parties and children to forthwith attend reintegration therapy with Andrea Barclay, with costs shared, and prohibited Caroline Hay from having any contact with the children.

The court rejected the applicant's proposal to continue therapy with Melissa Healy, finding her approach to reintegration inappropriate.

A judicial review was scheduled to determine the necessity of a s.30 assessment and a residential schedule after the therapy report.

The applicant brought a motion seeking reimbursement for s. 7 expenses, further advances, and orders regarding a child's treatment and custody.

The respondent had a history of non-compliance with s. 7 expense orders, including failing to pay tuition, which caused a crisis for one child.

The court ordered the respondent to immediately reimburse the applicant for a specific university tuition payment.

The remaining s. 7 claims and the motions concerning the child's custody and treatment were adjourned, with the court noting the respondent's lack of collaboration and late disclosure as contributing factors to the ongoing issues and delays.

Directions for cost submissions were also provided, with the court highlighting the respondent's conduct.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a motion brought by the Applicant under sections 12 and 40 of the Family Law Act.

The court found that success on the underlying motion was divided, with the Applicant securing significant asset preservation orders while the Respondent successfully resisted broader relief.

The Respondent's prior unreasonable conduct justified the Applicant's motion, but both parties acted reasonably during the motion itself and in their settlement efforts.

Considering these factors, the court awarded the Applicant full disbursements and approximately 50% of her legal fees.

The applicant sought interim orders under sections 12 and 40 of the Family Law Act to restrain the respondent from dissipating assets, alleging depletion of capital that would impair her equalization and retroactive support claims.

The respondent opposed, arguing the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof and the relief sought was excessive.

The court found that while reckless depletion was not proven, there was a real risk the applicant would be unable to collect on a significant judgment due to the respondent's financial arrangements and delays.

The court granted a more tailored interim order, preserving specific assets, requiring the registration of a certificate of pending litigation against a cottage, and mandating a $4 million bond or letter of credit, while allowing the respondent to conduct ordinary course business with reporting requirements.