Evelyn Kohn Rayson

The applicant, Marion Breukelman, sought to consolidate two civil proceedings (a civil action and an employment action) into her ongoing family law application.

The court granted the motion for consolidation, finding that the proceedings shared common questions of fact and law, particularly regarding the beneficial ownership of shares in a family business (R. Avis Surveying Inc.).

The court emphasized that consolidation would promote judicial efficiency, save legal expenses for the parties, and, most importantly, avoid the risk of inconsistent judgments across the related proceedings.

Despite concerns raised by the respondent and other parties about inconvenience, the court determined that the balance of convenience favoured consolidation, noting that the Family Law Rules provide tools for efficient case management.

The respondent was largely successful in defending her former husband's appeal and pursuing her cross-appeal.

She sought full recovery costs of $40,422.60.

The Court of Appeal awarded her costs of $38,000, ordering that 25% of the award be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office as it was proportionate to the support-related issues at stake.

The appellant appealed an order settling amounts owing pursuant to a previous family law judgment, arguing errors in the calculation of post-judgment interest on an equalization payment and seeking credit for spousal support paid.

The respondent cross-appealed, arguing the motion judge erred by including spousal support in her income when calculating her retroactive child support obligations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, finding no error in the interest calculation.

The Court allowed the cross-appeal, holding that under the Child Support Guidelines, spousal support received must be deducted when calculating a payor's income for child support purposes.

The appellant's motion for leave to appeal costs was also dismissed.

This case involved a married couple separating after 10 years, with two children.

The primary issues at trial were parenting time and decision-making, equalization of net family property, the treatment of Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) for support and property calculations, child support, and spousal support.

The court granted joint custody, with the children primarily residing with the Respondent, and established a detailed four-week parenting schedule.

The Applicant was awarded an equalization payment and ongoing spousal support.

The court also clarified how RSUs should be treated for child versus spousal support calculations, distinguishing between income and property.

The applicant brought a motion seeking credits towards an equalization payment and retroactive child support, while the respondent sought post-judgment interest on the equalization payment and the removal of a temporary restraining order.

The court denied the applicant's request for credits for periodic spousal support and mortgage arrears, but ordered him to pay his half of a lien and legal costs.

The court awarded the respondent post-judgment interest at 3% on the equalization payment due to the applicant's deliberate delay.

The applicant was awarded retroactive child support, which was set off against the amount he owed the respondent.

The temporary restraining order against the respondent was maintained.

The court issued reasons on costs following an uncontested trial in a family law matter.

The applicant, Ms. Manchanda, was partially successful in her claims for equalization and repayment of funds, but several other claims were dismissed.

She sought full indemnity costs of $159,845.14 or partial indemnity costs of $95,388.11, alleging bad faith by the respondent, Mr. Thethi.

The court declined to find bad faith, noting it had been addressed in prior awards, and found that Ms. Manchanda's litigation approach added needlessly to the length and complexity of the proceedings.

Considering her partial success and the issues with her litigation conduct, the court awarded Ms. Manchanda $80,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The parties, married for 10 years without children, separated in 2013.

The applicant sought equalization, constructive trust, repayment of $100,000, lump sum retroactive spousal support, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and a permanent restraining order.

The respondent's pleadings were struck due to non-compliance with disclosure orders, leading to an uncontested trial.

The court granted equalization of $263,600.96 and ordered repayment of $100,000 to the applicant.

Claims for constructive trust, spousal support, and a permanent restraining order were dismissed.

The applicant was granted exclusive possession of her apartment in the matrimonial home for 60 days for transition, and excess rental income collected by the applicant was set off against the amounts owed by the respondent.

In the first part of a bifurcated family law trial dealing with property issues, the court determined the treatment of the respondent's RRSP used under the Home Buyers Plan and a disputed pre-marriage loan.

The court held that the respondent was entitled to a date of marriage deduction for his $25,000 RRSP and had a date of separation asset of $21,668, subject to a notional tax rate of 25%.

The court also found, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent had an asset of $35,000 (US) owed to him on the date of marriage from a loan to his brother-in-law, rather than the $47,400 claimed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order striking his pleadings for failing to comply with multiple court orders regarding financial disclosure and the deposit of rental income.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's willful non-compliance to be exceptional and egregious, particularly in the context of strict family law financial disclosure obligations.

The court also upheld the motion judge's decision to allow the respondent to amend her application to include a claim for constructive trust, noting no prejudice to the appellant.

The applicant sought supervised access and custody, while the respondent sought unsupervised access.

The court granted unsupervised access as sought by the respondent and limited rights to the applicant, noting the applicant's tactical use of access as a negotiating lever.

The court emphasized that access is a child's right and not a tool for parental negotiation, and urged both families to reduce acrimony for the child's best interest.

The Applicant sought an increase in spousal support from $15,000 to $30,000 per month, and retroactive support, arguing a material change in circumstances due to the Respondent's undisclosed significant increase in income and net worth following a business merger and IPO shortly after their separation agreement was finalized.

The Respondent argued against variation, citing the Miglin test and claiming the Applicant had access to income from her father's businesses held in trust.

The court found the Respondent engaged in blameworthy conduct by misrepresenting his financial circumstances and failing to disclose the impending business transaction.

The court also affirmed the existence of a resulting trust over the assets held by the Applicant for her father, meaning no income could be imputed to her from those assets.

The court varied the spousal support to $25,000 per month, retroactive to January 1, 2009, and ordered a lump sum payment.

The applicant's motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for persistent failure to provide financial disclosure was granted, while the respondent's cross-motion to strike the applicant's pleadings was dismissed.

The respondent had ignored disclosure orders for three years, providing disorganized and incomplete financial information, making a contested trial impossible.

The court emphasized the critical importance of early, voluntary, and complete financial disclosure in family law proceedings and the duty of parties to promote a just outcome.

The respondent's conduct was deemed willful and egregious, warranting the striking of his pleadings.

In this family law costs ruling following a disclosure motion involving third parties, the successful moving party sought full recovery costs based on an offer to settle and alleged bad faith by the opposing parties.

The court held that the responding parties' conduct was unreasonable, but did not meet the high threshold for bad faith.

Applying Rules 24 and 18 of the Family Law Rules and the fair-and-reasonable costs approach, the court reduced the claimed amount because the materials and time spent were excessive and the matter was straightforward.

Costs were apportioned separately between the husband and the third party, with no joint and several liability.

In the context of an ongoing family law arbitration, the respondent wife brought a motion for third-party document production against the applicant husband's business partner and related corporations.

The documents were sought to assess the soft costs of a real estate development project for equalization purposes.

The third party opposed the motion, alleging the wife breached the implied undertaking rule by tipping off the CRA, which led to an audit.

The court found no satisfactory evidence to justify the third party's sudden withdrawal of cooperation and granted the motion for document production pursuant to Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant mother brought a motion to amend her application to add a civil conspiracy claim against the respondent father and his new wife, alleging they structured their financial affairs to hide the father's income and assets to avoid child support obligations.

She also sought to add the new wife and her corporations as parties, obtain financial disclosure from them, and obtain an order for interim child support and arrears.

The father claimed his only income was a $14,000 disability pension, but the mother provided evidence of a lavish lifestyle and his active involvement in the new wife's businesses.

The court allowed the amendments and the addition of the parties, finding the threshold for amending pleadings was met and the limitation period issue regarding the conspiracy claim was a triable issue of discoverability.

The court ordered full disclosure and ordered the father to pay $1,500 per month in interim child support, fixing arrears at $94,300 and section 7 arrears at $44,000, based on the unvaried 2005 Minutes of Settlement.

The appellant appealed an order finding him in contempt and requiring him to reinstate a life insurance policy and designate his wife as beneficiary.

The Divisional Court found that while the motion judge did not err in making an order despite there being no current support obligation, she did err in law by ordering the appellant to reinstate a life insurance policy, as s. 34(1) of the Family Law Act only provides jurisdiction to require a spouse who already has a policy to designate a beneficiary.

The appeal was allowed in part, the penalty for contempt was varied to compel the appellant's participation in the proceedings, and a procedural timetable was ordered.

The applicant wife sought spousal support and an equalization of net family property, arguing that a 1998 estate freeze by the respondent husband's father was a fraudulent conveyance designed to defeat her equalization claim.

The court dismissed the fraudulent conveyance claim, finding no unlawful intention and noting the applicant was not a creditor at the time.

The court imputed an income of $30,000 to the applicant and ordered the respondent to pay $4,500 per month in spousal support for a maximum of 10 years.

The court also determined the value of the respondent's shares in the family business, applying a 30% discount for lack of control and deducting contingent taxes, and dismissed the applicant's request for an unequal division of net family property.

The appellant appealed an order refusing to add a business and an individual as parties to her matrimonial litigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the proposed parties were not necessary and proper because the appellant only sought a monetary equalization payment, not an interest in the business.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking an accounting of assets transferred to the applicant mother to satisfy a net family property equalization order, as well as temporary spousal support payable to him and potential striking of the mother's pleadings for non‑compliance.

The motion arose in the context of a 1998 final order granting the mother substantial equalization and support entitlements following a long marriage.

The court held that while the father could seek disclosure relating to credits against the equalization judgment, he had not utilized available disclosure mechanisms under the Family Law Rules and had not provided updated financial disclosure required for a motion to change support.

The court also found no sufficient explanation for the father’s request to terminate and reverse spousal support obligations after many years.

The motion was dismissed, with disclosure issues left to proceed through normal procedural mechanisms.

The appellant father sought leave to appeal and a stay of an interlocutory order finding him in contempt and requiring him to reinstate a $400,000 life insurance policy to secure child support, or alternatively travel to Ontario for a medical examination.

The father argued that his child support obligations had been previously suspended, and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction under the Family Law Act to order life insurance to secure a non-existent support obligation.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of ordering life insurance as a 'future fund' without an existing support obligation, and stayed the lower court orders pending the appeal.