Donna 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.

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 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 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.

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.

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion to adjourn the trial scheduled for January 2016 to April or May 2016.

The moving party argued that an adjournment was necessary due to outstanding expert reports, incomplete questioning, and a pending section 30 assessment report.

The responding party opposed the motion, citing prejudice and the moving party's failure to comply with previous timetables.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party had twice consented to trial dates and failed to comply with the associated timetables, and that further delay would prejudice the responding party and the parties' child.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support retroactive to the parties’ separation.

The court found that the respondent’s true income for support purposes could not be determined with certainty due to incomplete disclosure and competing assumptions in expert financial analysis.

Pending further disclosure, questioning, and expert reports, the court made an interim determination using the respondent’s expert’s income estimate of $1,050,703.

Temporary child support of $12,500 per month and spousal support of $26,000 per month were ordered, along with ongoing payment of certain family expenses.

The support orders were expressly subject to reconsideration once full financial disclosure and expert evidence were completed.

The applicant mother, who had sole custody of the child, sought to relocate to New Jersey to live with her new husband.

The respondent father opposed the move and sought custody.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework and found that the move was in the child's best interests, noting the mother's role as primary caregiver and the bona fide nature of the relocation.

The court permitted the move, varied the access schedule to provide the father with less frequent but longer visits, and ordered the father to pay child support arrears and ongoing support without imputing income to the mother for her temporary leave of absence.