Elissa Helene Gamus

The appellant appealed the trial decisions regarding custody, equalization of net family property, spousal support, and costs following a high-conflict separation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the custody appeal as moot since the children were now adults.

The court upheld the trial judge's calculation of net family property, finding no error in excluding the pre-marriage mortgage on the matrimonial home or in denying an unequal division.

The spousal support award of $10,000 per month and the discretionary costs awards were also affirmed, with the court emphasizing deference to trial judges in family law matters.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding under case management, the court conducted telephone case conferences to address disputes relating to parenting scheduling, confidentiality agreements affecting disclosure, and the impending power of sale of the former matrimonial home.

The parties had previously agreed not to bring parenting motions pending completion of a s. 30 assessment, but urgent issues arose concerning mortgage arrears and potential power of sale proceedings.

The court declined to authorize several proposed motions but granted the respondent leave to bring a limited motion concerning the power of sale timeline due to the urgency of the mortgage demand.

The judge maintained strict case management control, requiring leave and a timetable before any motions could be brought and scheduling a further case conference to determine next procedural steps.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to vary an interim access order requiring a nanny to accompany the child during access visits.

The nanny had resigned, leading to a stalemate in which the applicant mother refused unsupervised access while the father refused supervision, resulting in the child not seeing the father for several weeks.

The court interpreted the earlier order and held that the term “accompany” did not mean supervision.

In the child’s best interests, the court ordered temporary unsupervised access for the father, with supervised transitions between the parents.

The court also permitted the mother to travel temporarily with the child to California for a limited visit with her family.

At a trial management conference in a family law proceeding involving custody, access, child support, and related relief, the court reviewed the status of prior orders and clarified the remaining issues for trial.

The court confirmed that custody had already been determined, while issues such as access, travel restrictions, passport control, child support income determination, and a potential restraining order remained for trial.

The court addressed disclosure issues, including ordering production of the full assessment file of a psychological evaluator and requiring financial disclosure from the respondent.

The endorsement also set deadlines for service of trial records, witness summaries, and document briefs, and restricted the parties from bringing further motions before trial.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent brought a motion under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules seeking summary judgment to enforce an alleged oral settlement reached during a settlement meeting.

The applicant argued that no binding settlement had been reached because essential terms remained unresolved and the parties intended any agreement to be finalized only through a comprehensive written separation agreement.

The court reviewed the governing principles for determining whether a binding settlement exists, including the requirement of consensus on all essential terms and objective evidence of a meeting of the minds.

Examining the parties’ post‑meeting correspondence and the proposed terms, the court found ongoing negotiations, material variations between proposals, and clear indications that a final written separation agreement was required.

As a result, the court concluded that no enforceable settlement had been reached.

Following a family law summary judgment motion regarding custody and access, the court addressed costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant had obtained summary judgment granting sole custody but the access issue was directed to trial.

The applicant sought approximately $39,773 in costs using a “hybrid full recovery” approach.

The court held that although the applicant was presumptively entitled to costs as the successful party on custody, the amount claimed was excessive for a one‑day motion decided on affidavit evidence.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Following a lengthy marriage between two medical professionals, the parties proceeded to trial to resolve financial issues including equalization of net family property, spousal support, child support, and section 7 expenses.

The court determined that equalization under the Family Law Act was appropriate and rejected the applicant’s claim for an unequal division under s. 5(6), finding that equalization would not be unconscionable.

The court calculated an equalization payment and addressed numerous disputed property valuation issues, including notional disposition costs and treatment of premarital assets.

The court also found the applicant entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and needs-based grounds due to reduced earning capacity after assuming greater childcare responsibilities during the marriage.

Orders were made for ongoing spousal support, retroactive support adjustments, set‑off child support, allocation of section 7 expenses, life insurance to secure support obligations, and timelines for vacating the matrimonial home.

In a high-conflict matrimonial proceeding involving extensive disputes over financial disclosure, corporate interests, and equalization, the respondent spouse brought multiple motions including contempt, interim disbursements, and disclosure-related relief.

The court declined to dismiss the contempt motion outright but adjourned it for further legal submissions, noting deficiencies in the supporting factum.

The court granted the respondent an advance of $10,000 against the anticipated equalization payment to retain a financial expert, finding a reasonable need and little doubt that some equalization would ultimately be payable.

Various other motions, including questioning, OCL appointment, and electronic service orders, were dismissed or adjourned.

The matter was placed under case management and converted from a long motion into a settlement conference to promote resolution.

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

The appellant was awarded costs of the appeal on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $12,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

This costs endorsement followed a prior family law ruling concerning support issues.

Although the underlying motion resulted in mixed success, the court found the respondent was largely successful on the principal issue relating to income determination for support purposes.

The court held that the applicant should reasonably have accepted the respondent’s offer to settle, which would have provided greater overall financial benefit and avoided further litigation costs.

Considering the Family Law Rules and the parties’ financial circumstances, the court exercised its discretion to award costs approaching substantial indemnity but reduced the amount because the respondent was not wholly successful.

Costs of $21,893.84, including partial reimbursement of an expert report, were ordered payable within 30 days.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order striking his pleadings for failure to comply with previous financial disclosure orders in a high-conflict matrimonial dispute.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the pleadings, finding that striking pleadings is a remedy of last resort and was not warranted given the substantial disclosure already made, the lack of itemized missing disclosure, the absence of wilful disobedience, and the principle of proportionality.

On competing family law motions, the parties sought orders concerning income imputation, child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, and financial restraints.

The court considered evidence regarding the respondent’s business income, rental income, and debt levels, including an expert financial analysis report, and rejected the applicant’s argument that significant undisclosed cash income should be attributed.

The court accepted the expert analysis and imputed annual income to the respondent of $26,000 for child support purposes, while declining to impute income to the applicant due to her primary caregiving responsibilities for a child with significant developmental needs, though noting she retained some earning capacity.

Child support was fixed at the Guideline table amount based on the respondent’s income, modest spousal support was ordered, and the respondent was required to temporarily continue vehicle-related payments.

Additional orders addressed section 7 expense sharing, release of trust funds to the respondent, and a non‑dissipation order restraining the applicant from further encumbering equity in her property pending resolution of equalization.

The applicant mother brought an interim motion seeking sole custody, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and substantial retroactive child and spousal support based on an imputed income of $700,000 to the respondent father.

The court declined to determine custody on the limited interim record but confirmed that the child would primarily reside with the mother in the matrimonial home.

The request for exclusive possession was denied because the evidence did not establish that the father’s continued presence posed a threat to the child’s best interests under s. 24 of the Family Law Act.

The court assessed the father’s interim income at $325,000 and ordered table child support and high-range spousal support under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, retroactive to November 1, 2011.

Requests for section 7 expenses and further disclosure were deferred.