Fareen Jamal

The applicant mother brought a motion for primary care of the parties' three children following their separation and the impending sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent father sought a 2-2-3 shared parenting arrangement.

The court found that the father had an unacknowledged alcohol abuse problem that contributed significantly to parental conflict and posed a risk to the children.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act, the court granted primary care to the mother and ordered specified parenting time for the father without overnights, conditional on him not consuming alcohol before or during his parenting time.

The father brought an urgent motion to enforce a previous endorsement that maintained the status quo parenting arrangement.

The mother had previously brought an unsuccessful urgent motion to change the arrangement, and subsequently unilaterally denied the father his scheduled weekend with one of the children.

The court ordered the mother to comply with the status quo and strongly criticized her for engaging in aggressive, strategic litigation and failing to accept the previous court decision.

The moving party mother brought a motion seeking an order for the responding party father to pay his proportionate share of the child's section 7 expenses, including daycare, private school tuition, and extracurricular activities, as well as a retroactive adjustment to child support.

The court granted the request for daycare expenses, finding them reasonable and necessary for the mother to work.

However, the court dismissed the claims for private school tuition, finding it unaffordable and unnecessary, and for extracurricular activities, finding them not extraordinary.

The request to retroactively adjust child support by setting aside a prior agreement was also dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion for equal shared parenting or expanded unsupervised parenting time.

The respondent mother had unilaterally restricted his parenting time following incidents involving the father's intoxication, excessive noise, and police involvement.

The court found that while the father's substance use was a concern, the mother's unilateral self-help remedies were also inappropriate.

The court ordered an expanded parenting schedule for the father, denied the mother's request for a breathalyzer requirement, but imposed strict conditions prohibiting the father from consuming alcohol or drugs before or during his parenting time, subject to a review in six months.

The applicant wife brought a motion for the production of expert business valuation and income reports, and for an order requiring the respondent husband to maintain life insurance as security for spousal support.

The parties had signed a marriage contract in 1991 waiving property and spousal support rights.

The court held that to order cost-prohibitive expert reports, the applicant must show it is more likely than not the contract will be set aside or overridden.

The court dismissed the request for business valuations, finding it equally possible the property provisions would be upheld.

However, the court ordered the production of an income report, finding it likely the spousal support waiver would be overridden under a Miglin analysis.

The request for life insurance was dismissed due to lack of evidence on insurability, but alternative security was ordered.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a temporary parenting order to obtain shared custody on a 2-2-5-5 basis.

The respondent mother opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking disclosure of the father's psychiatric records, disability benefit applications, and a Voice of the Child report.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding no material change in circumstances that would compel a change to the interim parenting arrangement.

The court granted the mother's cross-motion, ordering the disclosure of the father's medical and financial records, finding that the need to determine the children's best interests outweighed any claim of privilege.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary a consent Final Order to have the children relocate to live with him and attend school in person rather than remotely.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to transfer the case to Oshawa following her move to Little Britain.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding she had breached the prior order by moving without proper notice.

The court also dismissed the father's motion, noting a lack of urgency, the absence of input from the Office of the Children's Lawyer, and declining to interfere with the mother's final decision-making authority regarding remote schooling during the COVID-19 pandemic.

No costs were awarded.

The parties attended a case conference to report on settlement status and establish a timetable for next steps in their family law dispute.

The court set a peremptory trial date and ordered a schedule for the exchange of formal Rule 18 offers to settle.

The court also directed the applicant to prepare to address the impact of his prior bankruptcy on his claim for a constructive trust interest in the respondent's property.

Following a long-term marriage, the parties disputed the date of separation, equalization of net family property, excluded property claims relating to Iranian assets, and entitlement to spousal support.

The court rejected the husband's asserted earlier separation date and found the parties separated when the husband moved out in 2010.

Several of the husband's claims to exclude inherited or traced assets were rejected due to insufficient documentary evidence and credibility concerns.

The court also addressed the sale of a jointly owned Iranian property without notice to the wife and granted a set-off reflecting her interest.

Equalization was ordered in favour of the wife and ongoing spousal support awarded.

Following competing motions in a family law proceeding concerning child support, financial disclosure, and related relief, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant had been largely successful in obtaining orders for child support arrears, ongoing support based on prior income, and disclosure, while the respondent had failed to make adequate disclosure and ceased contributing to children’s expenses after severance income ended.

The court considered the principles governing costs under the Family Law Rules and the Courts of Justice Act, including proportionality, party conduct, and the effect of a reasonable offer to settle.

Although the applicant sought substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle, the court found the criteria under Rule 18(14) were not fully met.

The court nevertheless awarded full recovery on a partial indemnity basis, concluding the respondent’s conduct justified the applicant recovering the entirety of her reasonable costs.