Eli Seth Antel

This motion concerned the interpretation and enforcement of a Separation Agreement, specifically its security provisions for spousal support, following the Respondent's terminal cancer diagnosis and alleged asset depletion.

The Applicant sought to prevent the Respondent from undermining her beneficial interest in his estate by transferring assets to their son.

The court found the Respondent breached the agreement by terminating a family trust and adding their son as a joint account holder to other accounts with the improper purpose of removing assets from the estate.

Applying principles of contractual interpretation and good faith, the court ordered damages for the trust breach as a first charge on the estate and enjoined the Respondent from further improperly depleting the large investment account or transferring assets to their son by survivorship or gift, while allowing for legitimate personal and medical expenses.

This trial determined whether funds advanced by the respondent grandparents to the applicant mother and respondent father during their marriage constituted a gift or a loan for the purpose of property equalization.

The applicant argued the funds were a gift, while the respondents contended they were a loan.

The court applied the presumption of resulting trust, finding that the applicant failed to rebut it.

The court also considered factors for determining a loan, concluding that the funds were indeed a loan based on the grandparents' financial circumstances, their expectation of repayment, and evidence of partial repayments.

The applicant's testimony was found inconsistent and not credible.

The appellant appealed an order finding him in contempt and requiring him to reinstate a life insurance policy and designate his wife as beneficiary.

The Divisional Court found that while the motion judge did not err in making an order despite there being no current support obligation, she did err in law by ordering the appellant to reinstate a life insurance policy, as s. 34(1) of the Family Law Act only provides jurisdiction to require a spouse who already has a policy to designate a beneficiary.

The appeal was allowed in part, the penalty for contempt was varied to compel the appellant's participation in the proceedings, and a procedural timetable was ordered.

The applicant wife sought spousal support and an equalization of net family property, arguing that a 1998 estate freeze by the respondent husband's father was a fraudulent conveyance designed to defeat her equalization claim.

The court dismissed the fraudulent conveyance claim, finding no unlawful intention and noting the applicant was not a creditor at the time.

The court imputed an income of $30,000 to the applicant and ordered the respondent to pay $4,500 per month in spousal support for a maximum of 10 years.

The court also determined the value of the respondent's shares in the family business, applying a 30% discount for lack of control and deducting contingent taxes, and dismissed the applicant's request for an unequal division of net family property.

The appellant appealed an order refusing to add a business and an individual as parties to her matrimonial litigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the proposed parties were not necessary and proper because the appellant only sought a monetary equalization payment, not an interest in the business.

A family law trial concerning equalization of net family property following the separation of spouses.

The applicant, acting as executor of the deceased husband’s estate, sought inclusion of a Toronto condominium and certain financial accounts in the respondent wife’s net family property.

The court addressed whether the condominium qualified as a matrimonial home under s. 18 of the Family Law Act and whether inherited funds held in investment accounts were excluded property under s. 4(2).

The court held the condominium was not ordinarily occupied as a family residence and therefore was not a matrimonial home.

The court also found the investment account funds were traceable to an inheritance and were excluded property, while certain credit union accounts were included in the wife’s net family property.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking an accounting of assets transferred to the applicant mother to satisfy a net family property equalization order, as well as temporary spousal support payable to him and potential striking of the mother's pleadings for non‑compliance.

The motion arose in the context of a 1998 final order granting the mother substantial equalization and support entitlements following a long marriage.

The court held that while the father could seek disclosure relating to credits against the equalization judgment, he had not utilized available disclosure mechanisms under the Family Law Rules and had not provided updated financial disclosure required for a motion to change support.

The court also found no sufficient explanation for the father’s request to terminate and reverse spousal support obligations after many years.

The motion was dismissed, with disclosure issues left to proceed through normal procedural mechanisms.

Following an urgent family law motion regarding temporary custody and parenting arrangements, the court was required to determine costs after the parties left without addressing the issue.

The respondent father sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully obtaining a nesting arrangement for the children and related financial orders.

The court found that the respondent achieved substantial success on the motion and that the applicant mother had engaged in unreasonable conduct by unilaterally removing the children from the matrimonial home and seeking to restrict the father’s parenting time.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that costs should exceed partial indemnity due to the applicant’s conduct.

Costs were therefore awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering her to pay her proportionate share of post-secondary tuition fees for her adult son under section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The appellant argued the son had withdrawn from parental control and was no longer a dependent child.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual determination that the son remained a child of the marriage under the Divorce Act while pursuing his education.