Elizabeth C. Mourao

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary orders, including an order to enroll the parties' two children in their current private school for the upcoming year and requiring the respondent father to pay his proportionate share of the tuition.

The father opposed, arguing the children should attend public school due to long-term affordability concerns.

The court found the father failed to demonstrate compelling circumstances to justify disrupting the children's education pending a final decision.

The court held the tuition was a necessary and reasonable section 7 extraordinary expense and ordered the father to pay 75% of the cost based on the parties' 2024 incomes, subject to future reapportionment.

On a family law motion arising from a motion to change, the applicant sought to strike the respondent's pleadings after he failed to comply with an order requiring payment of security for costs.

Applying the Rule 1(8) framework, the court found a clear triggering breach, declined to exercise discretion in favour of the non-complying party, and emphasized repeated non-compliance with support, costs, and procedural orders together with litigation abuse.

The court held that exceptional circumstances justifying relief were absent and that lesser remedies had already failed.

The respondent's pleadings were struck, the matter was permitted to proceed by uncontested trial, and the respondent was barred from further participation except as provided by the Rules.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Faieta J. dated July 17, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

This is a decision on an interim motion for spousal and child support.

The Applicant wife sought support from the Respondent husband, who derives income from family corporations.

The court addressed the husband's income determination, including corporate losses from new business ventures, and the imputation of income to the wife due to intentional underemployment.

The court applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAGs) and the Child Support Guidelines, setting interim spousal and child support amounts effective March 1, 2024, and outlining the sharing of matrimonial home costs and Section 7 expenses.

Retroactive support claims were deferred to trial.

The applicant mother sought to continue the children's enrollment at a private school, Branksome Hall, while the respondent father sought enrollment at the local public school.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, ordering both children to attend the local public school.

The decision was based on the children's best interests, considering behavioral issues at the private school, the lack of a spot for one child, and the mother's consistent failure to ensure timely school attendance.

This decision addresses interim spousal and child support.

The court determined the respondent's income by including legitimate corporate business losses, rejecting the applicant's higher income estimates based on lifestyle and inflated budgets.

Income was imputed to the applicant due to intentional underemployment.

Interim spousal and set-off child support orders were made, effective March 1, 2024, with section 7 expenses shared 80% by the respondent and 20% by the applicant.

Retroactive support claims were deferred to trial due to prior uncharacterized payments.

This trial focused on financial issues following a marital breakdown, including income determination for support, child and spousal support quantum, and equalization of property.

The respondent sought an unequal division of net family property and a 50% interest in a condominium by way of constructive/resulting trust, while the applicant claimed significant post-separation adjustments.

The court imputed income to the applicant, found the respondent entitled to both compensatory and needs-based spousal support, and granted her a 50% interest in the condominium proceeds.

The request for an unequal division of net family property was denied, and the applicant's claims for post-separation adjustments were largely dismissed due to intertwined finances and lack of supporting evidence.

The applicant father brought a motion to find the respondent mother in contempt of four court orders regarding his parenting time and an order requiring disclosure of information about the child.

The court found that the mother had willfully disobeyed the parenting time orders by failing to take positive steps to require the 15-year-old child to attend access, instead encouraging the child's estrangement.

The court found the mother in contempt for the parenting time breaches but exercised its discretion not to find her in contempt for failing to disclose the child's babysitting address, reserving the penalty to a subsequent remedies hearing.

The applicant sought to expand an ex parte restraining order and obtain disclosure from the respondent, who had allegedly dissipated assets and commenced divorce proceedings in foreign jurisdictions.

The respondent disputed the Ontario court's jurisdiction and sought an adjournment.

The court granted the applicant's requests for disclosure and a stay of foreign proceedings as reasonable and necessary terms for the adjournment, finding that Ontario had jurisdiction under the Divorce Act based on the applicant's evidence.

The Respondent, Tatiane Steinberg, brought an urgent motion for a preservation/non-dissipation order and security for equalization, spousal, and child support after the Applicant, Jose Gustavo Steinberg, transferred over $4 million in assets to his mother in Brazil.

The court continued the preservation order and ordered the Applicant to post an irrevocable letter of credit for $400,000 to secure equalization obligations, with severe penalties for non-compliance.

The court declined to order security for child and spousal support at this stage due to conflicting evidence on income and the short nature of the motion, but ordered extensive monthly disclosure regarding the alienated assets.

The Applicant was also ordered to pay the Respondent $112,500 plus interest, representing the balance of her share from the matrimonial home sale proceeds, which he had improperly withheld.

The court also commented on counsel's failure to properly estimate motion time and case conference issues.

The Applicant, Maria Vittoria Costa, brought a motion seeking child support, section 7 expenses, and spousal support from the Respondent, Alexander (Sandro) Costa, following their separation after a 24-year marriage.

The court ordered Mr. Costa to pay child support arrears and ongoing table child support based on an imputed income of $180,097.

Additionally, Mr. Costa was ordered to pay his proportionate share of section 7 expenses for the adult children.

While the court found Ms. Costa had an entitlement to spousal support, it declined to make an order for spousal support for the period from September 2018 onwards, noting her Net Disposable Income was already higher than Mr. Costa's after other support payments.

Spousal support for earlier periods was deferred for further determination at trial or by subsequent motion due to insufficient financial information.

In a bifurcated family law trial, the court determined issues of spousal support entitlement, income for support purposes, and a claim for a resulting trust over a property.

The court found the wife had an ongoing entitlement to spousal support.

The husband's income was imputed to include $30,000 annually in housing and other benefits provided by his wealthy father.

Finally, the court held that a property purchased by the father and placed in the names of the husband and wife was a gratuitous transfer.

The wife failed to rebut the presumption of resulting trust, and the property was declared to be held in trust for the father.

The Applicant, Michael David Garland, moved for costs following his successful motion to change previous joint custody orders to expand his residence time with the parties' child.

The court found the Applicant had achieved decisive success in the underlying motion.

The Applicant sought full indemnity of $26,700 or partial indemnity of $19,500.

The Respondent, Candace Brouwer, opposed the amount.

The court determined that substantial indemnity was appropriate but reduced the amount to $12,000, considering that a smaller amount would have been reasonably contemplated and that the Respondent should not be responsible for the Applicant's choice of a lawyer who had to travel.

The applicant father sought to vary a joint custody order to expand his residence time with his seven-year-old daughter, whose primary residence was with the respondent mother.

The court first addressed a clause in a prior consent order restricting review until the child reached grade 6, clarifying it did not preclude review upon a material change in circumstances, as required by the Children’s Law Reform Act.

Finding a material change due to both parents establishing stable homes and the child's increased age, the court applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework.

The father's proposal for an extra overnight and extended alternate weekends was granted to maximize contact and smooth the schedule, despite the mother's objections regarding disruption and homework assistance.

However, the father's proposals for equal holiday time, including Christmas, were largely rejected to minimize long absences and maintain established traditions.

Summer vacation was expanded to two non-consecutive weeks, becoming consecutive in 2020.

The parties brought competing interim family law motions following separation.

One spouse sought partition and sale of the matrimonial home despite the property being registered solely in the other spouse’s name, while the responding spouse sought to impute higher income to the payor for child and spousal support.

The court held that the applicant had not established any ownership interest sufficient to invoke the Partition Act or otherwise justify ordering an immediate sale of the home, particularly where a constructive trust claim had not yet been proven.

The court declined most of the alleged income adjustments but imputed income reflecting employment salary, consulting fees paid through a corporation, and a portion of employment benefits.

Interim child support, spousal support, and retroactive support were ordered based on the imputed income.

Following a family law motion to change involving child support and post‑secondary expenses for adult children, the court addressed costs.

Both parties argued divided success, with the respondent seeking $15,606 and the self‑represented moving party seeking $15,080.94 including compensation for her own time.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the principles in Fong v. Chan regarding recovery by self‑represented litigants.

Although the moving party devoted significant effort, she could not recover for her own time because she had not forgone remunerative activity.

Finding she had largely prevailed on the motion, the court awarded her documented costs of $9,080.94, enforceable as support through the Family Responsibility Office.

The moving party mother brought a motion to change a previous order to seek child support and contributions to post-secondary education expenses for the parties' two adult children.

The responding party father argued that his disability pension income should not be grossed up, that child support should not be payable while one child lived away from home, and that the children should bear a larger portion of their education costs.

The court found that the parties' disability incomes were fully taxable and should not be grossed up.

The court ordered the father to pay child support for both children, finding that the child living away for school was deemed to reside with the parents under a previous order, and the other child was upgrading credits in preparation for post-secondary education.

The court further ordered that the post-secondary education expenses be shared equally in thirds between the mother, the father, and the respective child.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings.

The motion judge had struck the pleadings due to the appellant's failure to pay a prior costs order, lack of diligence in providing financial disclosure, and failure to respond to the respondent's efforts to resolve the matter.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge properly exercised her discretion in refusing an adjournment and striking the pleadings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.