Emma Compeau

The applicant in a family law proceeding brought a motion for pre-trial questioning and disclosure from three non-party witnesses: her former doctor and two former friends.

The applicant alleged the respondent used his significant wealth to unduly influence the witnesses.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant failed to establish that it would be unfair to proceed to trial without the requested orders under Rules 19(11) and 20(5) of the Family Law Rules.

The court noted that the rules do not provide a right to cross-examine witnesses before trial simply to test credibility.

The moving party sought leave to appeal and a stay of a paragraph of a lower court order.

The Divisional Court granted both leave to appeal and the stay, awarding costs of $2,500 to the moving party.

The parties were directed to schedule a case management conference and consider whether the appeal might become moot pending a motion to vary.

This case conference endorsement addresses a dispute over the paternity of a child where the putative father and his identical twin brother are both alleged fathers with 99.99% certainty from prior paternity tests.

The Ontario Court of Justice considered the jurisdictional limits under the amended Children's Law Reform Act and the All Families Are Equal Act, concluding that the Ontario Court of Justice lacks jurisdiction to determine parentage or grant tort damages related to the case.

The court declined to make further orders and suggested transferring the matter to the Superior Court of Justice.

The court also discussed the high cost of specialized paternity testing required to distinguish between identical twins and the issue of cost-sharing among the parties.

This decision addresses a high-conflict parenting dispute between Isabel Jarosz and Christopher Denda regarding attendance at their daughter’s extracurricular activities.

The court interprets a prior order and considers the best interests of the child, ultimately ruling that each parent should not attend routine extracurricular activities during the other’s parenting time, but both may attend significant events.

The court also addresses concerns about surreptitious recordings and awards partial costs to the successful party.

The Applicant sought extensive financial disclosure from the Respondent, who brought a cross-motion to dismiss, strike a paragraph, and impose disclosure restrictions, including a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).

The court criticized both parties' counsel for poor advocacy and lack of cooperation, particularly the Applicant's voluminous and unfocused material.

The court ordered specific, limited disclosure from the Respondent, contingent on the Applicant signing an NDA for confidential third-party information.

The Respondent's request to strike a paragraph containing settlement privileged discussions was granted.

Costs were awarded to the Respondent due to the Applicant's unreasonable positions and poorly prepared motion materials.

The Applicant brought a motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to strike the Respondent's Answer and impose a penalty due to his wilful breach of court orders, specifically concerning financial disclosure and support payments.

The court found the Respondent in breach of multiple orders but declined to strike his Answer, instead imposing a $5,000 penalty, an ongoing daily penalty of $200 for continued non-compliance with disclosure, and ordering him to pay outstanding costs and support arrears.

The court also ruled that the Respondent could not seek further relief until compliance and allowed the Applicant to move for an uncontested trial on financial issues if breaches persist.

This endorsement addresses cross-motions for interim child and spousal support and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court imputed the applicant father's income at $396,634 for support purposes, rejecting his request for a three-year average.

Interim child support was ordered on a set-off basis due to shared parenting, and interim spousal support was set to achieve a 50/50 split of net disposable income, applying an SSAG exception for compelling financial circumstances.

The respondent mother's request for security for support via life insurance was dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, finding no basis for the respondent's request for exclusive possession, but stipulated that the sale completion should not occur before July 1, 2024.

The applicant husband brought a motion for sanctions against the respondent wife for failing to comply with a consent disclosure order.

The husband sought a penalty of $250 per day until the breach was cured and an order prohibiting the wife from seeking further relief.

The court found the wife in breach but held it lacked jurisdiction under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to impose a monetary penalty absent a finding of contempt.

The court granted the wife an additional 30 days to provide the outstanding disclosure or demonstrate best efforts, failing which she would be prohibited from seeking further relief and the husband could move to strike her financial claims.

This motion concerned the temporary care and custody of a child, O.C-J., under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a temporary supervision order placing the child with the mother C.C-J., a position supported by C.C-J. herself, the child's aunt, and the child's counsel.

The other mother, S.C-J., sought placement with the aunt.

The court found that returning the child to S.C-J.'s care posed a risk of harm, given the child's expressed desire not to return and suicidal ideation.

The court determined that placing the child with C.C-J. under supervision was the least intrusive and most appropriate option, aligning with the child's wishes and mitigating identified risks, despite historical mental health concerns for C.C-J. and alienation fears raised by S.C-J.