E.L. Nakonechny

The parties engaged in a high-conflict family law trial regarding decision-making and parenting time for their seven-year-old daughter.

The father sought sole decision-making and the continuation of a 2/2/3 shared parenting schedule, while the mother sought sole decision-making, a reduction in the father's parenting time, and a change to the child's surname.

The court found that neither parent should have sole decision-making due to the risk of marginalizing the other, and instead ordered a parallel parenting regime with divided domains of authority.

The court maintained the 2/2/3 schedule to provide stability and dismissed the mother's request to change the child's surname.

The respondent husband brought a motion to set aside a final order made after an uncontested trial, arguing that the equalization and spousal support calculations were based on mistakes and misrepresentations, and that his non-compliance was due to mental health issues.

The applicant wife brought a cross-motion to dismiss the husband's motion and to correct a $20,000 calculation error in the equalization payment.

The court applied the Mountainview Farms test and found the husband failed to provide a plausible explanation for his default or an arguable defence on the merits.

The husband's motion was dismissed, the order was amended to reflect the $20,000 credit, and costs were awarded to the wife.

The applicant sought spousal support, claiming the parties lived in a conjugal relationship for six years.

The respondent denied they were spouses, asserting the applicant was an unwelcome guest who refused to leave and became violent.

The court applied the Molodowich criteria and found the parties did not live in a conjugal relationship, dismissing the spousal support claim.

Additionally, the court dismissed a preliminary motion to initialize the parties' names and granted the respondent's request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant, barring her from instituting further proceedings against him without leave.

The applicant corporation, controlled by the respondent's former partner, brought a motion for a mandatory order compelling the respondent to redeem a mortgage on her home prior to an upcoming family law trial.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald test as modified for mandatory orders, finding the applicant failed to establish a strong prima facie case or irreparable harm.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that the validity of the underlying Minutes of Settlement was a central issue for the impending trial, and awarded costs to the respondent.

The respondent wife brought a motion to dismiss the applicant husband's family law application, arguing that China was the more appropriate forum to determine their property and spousal support disputes.

The parties had married in China, obtained a joint divorce certificate there, and owned significant assets in China, though they also owned property and resided part-time in Ontario.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter due to a real and substantial connection, including the husband's claim for a constructive trust over an Ontario property.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding the wife failed to establish that China was a clearly more appropriate forum, particularly given the risk that the husband might be time-barred from pursuing property claims under Chinese law.

The applicant sought to invalidate a foreign divorce obtained by the respondent in Ukraine in 1998, arguing lack of notice, jurisdiction, and residency.

The respondent had since remarried and had a child.

The court considered expert evidence on Ukrainian family law and found that the foreign court had jurisdiction and the divorce was properly obtained.

Applying the Divorce Act and common law principles, the court recognized the foreign divorce, noting the applicant's unreasonable delay in challenging it and the inequity of invalidating it after the respondent's remarriage.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion for summary judgment to recognize a final custody and access order from the United Kingdom as an order of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice under section 41(1) of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, alleging breaches of the order and seeking to vary it.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the mandatory criteria for recognizing an extra-provincial order were met and none of the statutory exceptions applied.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the U.K. order was recognized.