Fareen L. Jamal

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 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.

On a family law summary judgment motion arising from an international marital dispute, the court refused the responding party's adjournment request where delay threatened Ontario's jurisdiction over spousal support and reflected prolonged non-compliance with disclosure and support obligations.

Applying the family law summary judgment framework informed by Hryniak, the court granted final sole custody and primary residence to the mother, with liberal Ontario and electronic access to the father, but held that access in Trinidad and Tobago required a trial.

The court imputed income of $100,000 to the father under the Child Support Guidelines because of persistent non-disclosure, ordered retroactive child support of $22,000 and ongoing support of $880 per month, and made a final $1 lump sum spousal support order to preserve jurisdiction while reserving quantum and duration pending calculations.

Summary judgment on equalization was dismissed for want of sufficient evidence.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

The applicant sought a reduction and eventual termination of spousal support obligations under a 2004 separation agreement, requesting retroactive effect from January 1, 2010.

The respondent opposed the reduction and sought payment of amounts owing under a cost-of-living clause.

The court found the respondent was more successful on the key issue of whether the support obligation should be terminated, ordering ongoing spousal support in a step-down manner rather than termination.

The court awarded costs to the respondent, accounting for litigation conduct, tax deductibility of legal fees, and time reasonably spent.

The applicant brought a motion to reduce or terminate his spousal support obligations under a 2004 separation agreement, citing his terminal cancer diagnosis, retirement, and the respondent's repartnering.

The court found the agreement permitted a de novo review.

The court imputed income to both parties, finding the applicant had not fully withdrawn from his business and the respondent had not made reasonable efforts to become self-sufficient.

The court also considered the financial benefit the respondent received from her new partner.

Spousal support was reduced in a stepped manner for 2011, 2012, and 2013 onwards.

The applicant's request for retroactive reduction to 2010 was denied, and he was ordered to pay arrears under a cost of living clause.

The applicant sought to reduce his spousal support obligation from $6,000 monthly to $3,000 monthly commencing January 1, 2010, and terminate it as of January 1, 2011, citing his retirement due to prostate cancer.

The respondent opposed the motion and claimed $16,414.84 owing under a cost of living clause.

The court determined this was a de novo review under the separation agreement rather than a variation requiring material change in circumstances.

The court found the applicant had not fully retired from business and imputed 50% of his prior business income.

The court reduced support to $5,000 monthly for 2011, $4,600 monthly for 2012, and $3,900 monthly from 2013 onward.

The court awarded the respondent $9,412.98 for cost of living increases from October 2005 to December 2009.