Esther L. Lenkinski

The applicant wife and respondent husband, both Canadian and Iranian citizens, separated in Ontario.

The husband sought to recognize and enforce an Iranian divorce judgment, arguing it dealt with property and support.

The wife opposed this, arguing she did not attorn to Iranian jurisdiction and that there was no real and substantial connection to Iran for the divorce.

She also sought a declaration that the Mehr (marriage portion) enforcement did not fully determine property rights in Canada.

The court dismissed the husband's motion, finding no attornment or real and substantial connection to Iran for the divorce.

The wife's motion for declaratory relief regarding the Mehr was also dismissed, as the court found it was not appropriate for summary judgment and should be determined at trial.

The Respondent brought a motion seeking extensive financial disclosure and orders regarding life insurance policies from the Applicant.

The Applicant filed a cross-motion for disclosure and other relief.

The court characterized the parties' litigation as a "train wreck" due to serial motions and non-compliance with disclosure, deeming it an abuse of process.

The judge ordered the Applicant to comply with previous disclosure orders and specific requests from the Respondent's business valuator within 30 days.

All other scheduled motions were vacated, and the parties were directed to a case conference to manage the matter towards a trial.

The applicant sought an immediate sale of the matrimonial home and release of half the net proceeds.

The respondent initially opposed the sale but later agreed to it, disputing only the terms of staging/repairs and the release of proceeds, arguing for a smaller initial release and the remainder held in trust as security for his equalization and unjust enrichment claims.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home on the applicant's proposed terms, including following real estate agent advice on staging/repairs, with costs paid from proceeds.

The court also ordered 50% of the net proceeds to be released to the applicant and the balance held in trust, finding the respondent had not established a prima facie unjust enrichment claim or met the onus for a preservation order for the full amount.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking the return of the parties' seven-year-old child to Los Angeles, California, under the Hague Convention, or, alternatively, interim parenting orders if the child remained in Ontario.

The court applied the "focal point of the child's life" test to determine habitual residence, finding that the child's habitual residence had shifted to Ontario due to the respondent mother's unilateral actions and disappearance, and the child's integration into Ontario life.

Consequently, the Hague Convention did not apply, and Ontario had jurisdiction.

The court also found that even if the Hague Convention applied, exceptions for grave risk of harm and acquiescence would prevent the child's return.

Interim parenting orders were granted, giving the applicant primary residence and major decision-making authority, with other issues adjourned to a case conference.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion to reinstate his struck pleadings, the court determined the costs payable to the successful applicant.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith by failing to comply with financial disclosure orders, warranting full recovery costs under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

However, the court reduced the quantum due to the applicant's counsel's unreasonable delay in responding to communications and excessive hours claimed.

The respondent was ordered to pay $15,000 in costs.

The applicant husband sought temporary sole custody and a s. 30 assessment, while the respondent wife sought summary judgment for permanent relocation to England with the children, or alternatively, an interim order to that effect, along with child and spousal support.

The court dismissed the husband's motions for temporary sole custody and a s. 30 assessment.

The wife's motion for summary judgment on permanent relocation was also dismissed, but she was granted interim sole custody and permission to return to England with the children, subject to conditions including a $10,000 security deposit and obtaining a mirror order in England.

The court also ordered a Voices of the Child report, with costs shared equally, and continued supervised access for the husband.

An expedited trial for custody, access, and mobility issues was set for January 2019.

Appeal from a motion judge's order determining child support obligations.

The appellant sought to reduce child support based on reported lower income, but the motion judge found the appellant had engaged in deliberate non-disclosure and evasion of financial disclosure obligations, hiding income through a corporation.

The motion judge attributed significantly higher income to the appellant and ordered child support payments over twelve months rather than the ten months specified in a prior consent order.

On appeal, the court found one palpable and overriding error regarding double-counting of repaid corporate loans but otherwise upheld the motion judge's decision.

The court reduced the attributed income and corresponding child support amounts but maintained the twelve-month payment structure.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment claiming $320,000 from her deceased ex-husband's estate.

The claim was based on a separation agreement that guaranteed her $1.5 million from the sale of a property, provided the deceased required her to accept an offer for less.

The plaintiff sold the property for $1.18 million without advising the deceased of the listing price or the offer before acceptance.

The court dismissed the action, finding that under the clear wording of the agreement, the deceased had the right to decide whether an offer under $1.5 million should be accepted.

The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument of promissory estoppel, finding the deceased's silence did not amount to a representation.

The parties could not agree on the terms of orders flowing from previous endorsements regarding support arrears, requiring the court to issue a further endorsement.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs, arguing the applicant acted in bad faith by attempting to enforce unascertainable arrears through the Family Responsibility Office despite the court's clear prior rulings.

The court found that the applicant's conduct amounted to bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, as she sought to relitigate the issue of arrears without reasonable justification.

Consequently, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $5,214.95.

This endorsement addresses the costs of motions brought by both parties, which involved parenting and procedural issues.

The court found that neither party achieved clear success on the parenting issues, and success was divided on procedural matters.

The respondent sought partial or substantial indemnity costs, while the applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, alleging bad faith by the respondent.

The court declined to find bad faith, noting that both parties contributed to the procedural wrangling and conflict.

Despite the applicant making a timely offer to settle, the court concluded that neither party should be vindicated by a costs award.

Consequently, no costs were awarded to either party for the motions.

The payor parent brought two motions to change seeking a reduction in child support based on alleged decreases in income.

The court found significant disclosure failures, credibility issues, and inaccurate financial statements.

After examining corporate records and evidence concerning the payor’s closely held corporation, the court attributed full corporate income, shareholder loans, and personal expenses paid through the corporation as income under the Child Support Guidelines.

The court determined the payor’s income for support purposes was substantially higher than claimed and increased the monthly child support obligations retroactively and prospectively.

A request by the responding parent to vary holiday access was dismissed for lack of material change.

Following a consent order resolving parenting issues, the court addressed costs arising from competing motions and an adjournment.

The moving party had short‑served extensive motion materials seeking contempt findings, parenting changes, and financial relief.

The responding party argued that the motion was unnecessary and that the eventual parenting arrangement largely reflected the responding party’s earlier offer to settle.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court found the responding party to be the more successful party and concluded the motion could have been avoided through proper scheduling and conference procedures.

The court ordered costs in favour of the responding party.

A father brought an application under the Children’s Law Reform Act seeking shared custody of a newborn child born in California after the mother travelled there late in pregnancy.

The primary issue on the motion was whether Ontario had jurisdiction over custody despite the child never residing in Ontario.

The court found that both parents were habitually resident in Ontario before the mother travelled to California and that the mother’s intention to relocate permanently to California arose only after the child’s birth.

Invoking the court’s parens patriae jurisdiction to address a gap in the statutory definition of habitual residence, the court held that Ontario had jurisdiction to determine custody.

The court also held that the respondent’s earlier Notice of Constitutional Question constituted attornment to the jurisdiction of the Ontario court.