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 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.

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 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.

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 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 (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.

The applicant sought divorce, equalization of net family property, and spousal support after a 38-year marriage.

The respondent refused to participate in the legal proceedings, leading to an uncontested trial.

The court determined the value of marital assets, attributed income to the respondent based on recent tax assessments, and found the applicant entitled to compensatory spousal support due to career sacrifices made during the marriage.

The court ordered a significant equalization payment and a lump sum spousal support award, citing the respondent's non-participation and the need for a clean break.

Costs were also awarded to the applicant.

The respondent mother brought a motion for financial disclosure from the applicant father and non-party corporations to determine the father's income for child support purposes.

The father, who is self-employed through a numbered company that owns 50% of another corporation, opposed the motion along with the non-party co-owner, arguing the request was disproportionate and sought confidential information.

The court granted the motion, ordering extensive corporate and personal financial disclosure, finding it necessary to determine the father's true income.

The court declined to issue a sealing order for the corporate documents, finding a confidentiality agreement and redactions sufficient, but ordered a limited publication ban to protect the children's identities.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's unjust enrichment claim, the respondent sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

Before costs were decided, the applicant made an assignment in bankruptcy.

The respondent argued that the costs should be characterized as spousal support so they would survive bankruptcy and be enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The court rejected this argument, noting that spousal support was never an issue in the proceedings and retroactively characterizing the claims would be an inappropriate end run around the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court declined to fix costs, without prejudice to the respondent renewing her request if she obtains a declaration lifting the bankruptcy stay.

The applicant and respondent were in a volatile, on-again/off-again relationship for several years.

After they separated, the applicant claimed the respondent was unjustly enriched by his financial and other contributions, seeking a monetary award of $55,200 based on a 'joint family venture' and a 'value surviving' calculation.

The respondent denied the claim and sought repayment of funds advanced for stock market investments and credit card debt.

The court dismissed the applicant's unjust enrichment claim, finding no joint family venture and that his contributions were largely for rent and groceries.

The court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent $3,700 as a return of investment capital and $3,122 for credit card debt.

The respondent mother brought a motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, interim support, and a temporary parenting order.

The parties continued to reside together post-separation, creating a highly acrimonious and stressful environment for the children.

The court granted the mother exclusive possession, finding it in the children's best interests to remain in their established neighborhood with their primary caregiver.

The court also ordered shared parenting, interim support of $2,000 per month plus household expenses, and comprehensive financial disclosure from the father.

Following a brief marriage and the birth of a child, the applicant sought custody, child support, section 7 expenses, retroactive and ongoing support, and limited access arrangements for the respondent father residing in the United States.

The court found the father intentionally under‑employed and imputed income of $150,000 for child support purposes under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

Evidence from supervised access providers demonstrated the father’s interactions with the child were appropriate, while the applicant had interfered with access.

The court ordered a structured regime beginning with supervised access followed by unsupervised access in Ontario, declining immediate international access visits.

Retroactive child support and limited retroactive spousal support during the maternity leave period were granted, and proportionate contributions were ordered for childcare expenses.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final consent order regarding custody and access after the respondent mother relocated with the children to Tobago and failed to return them for the Christmas holidays.

The father alleged the children were experiencing bullying and poor conditions in Tobago.

The court found a material change in circumstances and ordered temporary custody to the father, directing the children to remain in Ontario pending an assessment by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

Following competing family law motions regarding interim custody, access, and child support, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant sought interim sole custody and higher child support, while the respondent sought access arrangements.

The court’s interim orders fell between the parties’ positions, resulting in divided success.

Considering the parties’ unreasonable litigation positions, their settlement offers, and the mixed outcome, the court determined that neither party should recover costs.