Fareen L. Jamal

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion seeking the immediate sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home due to imminent bank foreclosure and to strike the applicant father's pleadings for non-compliance with a disclosure order.

The father opposed the sale, asserting the children's best interests and his efforts to manage the property.

The court granted the mother's request for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, dispensing with the father's consent and granting the mother sole authority over the sale process.

The motion to strike pleadings was adjourned.

The court found the property unaffordable for the father, the sale inevitable, and no legitimate family law claims prejudiced by the sale, also noting the father's uncooperative and bizarre conduct.

The parties brought motions for summary judgment regarding child support.

The applicant sought to vary a consent final order to cap his child support income due to a significant income increase, arguing against "wealth transfer." The respondent sought to enforce the existing order and collect arrears.

The court found no material change in circumstances to justify varying the order, as the original order already contemplated income fluctuations and provided a mechanism for adjustment.

The applicant's motion to change was dismissed.

The court found the applicant's claimed expenses unreasonable due to lack of documentary proof, adding them back to his income for support calculation.

The respondent's motion to enforce was granted, and the applicant was ordered to pay $219,688.00 in child support arrears.

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 appellant (mother) wrongfully retained two young children in Ontario after travelling from Dubai, UAE, where the children habitually resided.

The respondent father applied under s. 40 of the Children's Law Reform Act for a return order.

The trial judge declined jurisdiction under s. 23 of the CLRA, finding the serious harm threshold was not met, and ordered the children's return to Dubai.

The Supreme Court of Canada, 5-4, dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge committed no palpable and overriding error in concluding the children would not suffer serious harm, that separation from a primary caregiver does not automatically satisfy the serious harm threshold, and that the father's undertakings regarding the mother's residency should be included explicitly in the return order.

The dissent would have allowed the appeal on the basis that the trial judge materially misapprehended the evidence on both the likelihood and severity of harm.

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.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the respondent (N.) was entirely successful.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $99,500, reflecting a reduction from actual time incurred.

The appellant (F.) argued for each party to bear their own costs or for a reduced award, citing excessiveness and limited means.

The Court of Appeal found no special circumstances to warrant either full indemnity costs or no costs, ordering the appellant to pay the respondent $50,000 in all-inclusive costs, consistent with costs following the result and reasonable expectations.

The appellant mother brought a motion for a stay of proceedings related to the Court of Appeal's decision, pending her leave to appeal application to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The motion judge granted the stay, finding serious issues of public importance arising from the dissenting opinion, a risk of irreparable harm to the children if the stay was denied (potential separation from the primary caregiver and determination of parenting rights based on gender-based principles in a non-Hague Convention country), and that the balance of convenience favored granting the stay.

The stay was conditional on the mother filing her leave to appeal application within 45 days.

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 appellant mother travelled to Ontario from Dubai with her two children for a visit, but subsequently informed the respondent father that she would not return.

The father commenced proceedings in Ontario seeking a return order under s. 40 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The trial judge declined jurisdiction under ss. 22 and 23 of the Act, ordered the children returned to Dubai, and dismissed the mother's constitutional challenges to s. 40(3).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the mother's appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the risk of serious harm under s. 23, and upholding the constitutionality of the return order provision under both division of powers and the Charter.

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.

Mehrasa Tamaddonfar, a respondent in the main application, brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking the release of 50 percent of the proceeds from the sale of a matrimonial home.

The applicant, Seyedeh Shabnam Banihashemi, claimed 100 percent beneficial ownership through resulting trust or unjust enrichment, despite Ms. Tamaddonfar being a legal co-owner who contributed to the down payment and co-signed the mortgage.

The court dismissed Ms. Banihashemi's claims, finding that Ms. Tamaddonfar gave value for her interest, thus precluding a resulting trust, and that there was no unjust enrichment as Ms. Banihashemi benefited from acquiring the property and living there.

The motion for partial summary judgment was granted, and 50% of the proceeds were ordered released to Ms. Tamaddonfar.

Following a trial where the applicant father successfully obtained an order for the return of the parties' children to Dubai, the court determined the issue of costs.

The father sought $486,000 on a partial and full recovery basis, relying on an offer to settle.

The respondent mother argued for no costs or a significantly reduced amount due to her limited financial means.

The court found the father was entitled to costs and had beaten his offer to settle, but fixed costs at $250,000 on a partial indemnity basis to ensure the award was proportionate and within the mother's reasonable expectations and ability to pay.

In a non-Hague international child retention case, the court held that Ontario lacked jurisdiction under ss. 22 and 23 of the Children’s Law Reform Act to determine custody and access respecting two Canadian children retained in Ontario after a temporary trip from Dubai.

The court found the children were habitually resident in Dubai, there was a pending Dubai proceeding, and the evidence did not establish serious harm if they were returned.

The court also rejected a constitutional challenge to s. 40(3) of the Act, holding that the return-order provision was intra vires Ontario and did not violate ss. 2(a), 6, 7, or 15 of the Charter.

A return order to Dubai was granted, together with ancillary enforcement and sealing-related relief.

In a family law trial concerning whether two young children should be returned to Dubai, the respondent mother brought an application to adduce expert opinion evidence from a psychotherapist.

The proposed evidence concerned the potential emotional and psychological impact on infants separated from their primary caregiver.

The applicant father opposed the admission of the evidence.

Following a voir dire, the court applied the test for expert evidence and found the proposed expert was properly qualified and capable of giving fair, objective, and non-partisan evidence.

The court granted the application, permitting the expert to testify strictly on the potential impact of separation from a primary caregiver, but prohibited her from opining on the specific attachment of the children to either parent.

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 Applicant (wife) proceeded with an undefended trial seeking final orders for custody, child support, spousal support, and equalization of property.

The parties, Lebanese nationals, were married for 30 years and had significant assets in Venezuela and Lebanon.

The Respondent (husband) had left Canada for Lebanon, refused to provide disclosure, and indicated he would not comply with Canadian court orders.

The court imputed an income of $189,444 to the Respondent.

The court granted sole custody of the youngest child to the Applicant, ordered lump sum spousal support ($1,091,699), lump sum child support ($121,788), lump sum s. 7 expenses ($67,000), and an equalization payment ($3,200,543.46), totaling $4,486,518.39 CDN.

The court ordered the Respondent to transfer his share of specific foreign bank accounts to the Applicant to satisfy the debt, citing his bad faith and non-compliance.

Costs of $13,291.63 were awarded to the Applicant due to the Respondent's bad faith.

The Applicant wife brought a motion for ex parte relief, including a restraining order on assets.

Despite multiple adjournments and court orders for disclosure, the Respondent husband failed to comply, did not file an Answer, and ceased participation, pursuing proceedings in Lebanon.

The court found the Respondent's conduct to be in bad faith and ordered that the Applicant proceed to an uncontested trial, continued the restraining and disclosure orders, granted temporary spousal support of $4,504 per month, and awarded full recovery costs of $32,154.28 to the Applicant.

The applicant sought to expand an ex parte restraining order and obtain disclosure from the respondent, who had allegedly dissipated assets and commenced divorce proceedings in foreign jurisdictions.

The respondent disputed the Ontario court's jurisdiction and sought an adjournment.

The court granted the applicant's requests for disclosure and a stay of foreign proceedings as reasonable and necessary terms for the adjournment, finding that Ontario had jurisdiction under the Divorce Act based on the applicant's evidence.