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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.