Faria Marlatt

The applicant brought a motion to correct a previous endorsement regarding financial issues, and the court also addressed costs arising from a prior custody and access review hearing.

The court declined to award costs because the respondent remained an undischarged bankrupt.

The court partially granted the motion to correct the financial calculations, adding omitted expenses for family counseling services that survived the bankruptcy, but refused to include a $16,679 invoice due to a lack of evidence regarding the services provided.

The mother brought a motion to change seeking unsupervised access to her three children.

Her access had previously been suspended due to severe parental alienation and non-compliance with court orders, including a failure to complete the Family Bridges reunification program.

The court found that the mother had not demonstrated a material change in circumstances, as she continued to engage in alienating behaviours, pursued a campaign against the reunification professionals, and failed to meaningfully engage in ordered therapy.

The court declined to exercise further access jurisdiction over the eldest child, who was 17.5 years old, and dismissed the mother's motion for access to the younger two children until she fully complies with all court orders.

Following a successful motion by the applicant, the court determined the issue of costs.

The respondent had failed to make offers to settle, moved assets to family members, and deliberately provided inadequate disclosure.

The court found the respondent's conduct amounted to bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, which includes intent to conceal and inflict harm.

The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $39,000.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, extensive financial disclosure, preservation orders, and interim disbursements in a high-conflict family law proceeding.

The court found that the respondent had engaged in a complex corporate reorganization and failed to provide transparent disclosure regarding his assets and income.

The court imputed an annual income of $400,000 to the respondent based on the parties' lavish lifestyle and apparent diversion of funds.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim support, provide extensive corporate disclosure, and pay $100,000 as an advance for interim disbursements.

Preservation orders and certificates of pending litigation were also granted due to the risk of asset dissipation.

The applicant sought orders finding the respondent in contempt of eight separate court orders and declaring him a vexatious litigant under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent requested an adjournment, which was denied, and then abruptly left the courtroom, failing to participate further.

The court found the respondent in contempt, noting his persistent and willful breaches of child support obligations, cost orders, involvement of children in litigation, and failure to comply with therapeutic mandates.

As a remedy for contempt, the respondent's pleadings were struck.

The court also declared the respondent a vexatious litigant due to his history of persistent, groundless proceedings, re-litigation of settled issues, and misuse of judicial resources, precluding him from instituting further proceedings without leave, with one specific exception for an existing civil case.

The case management judge issued a procedural endorsement following a case conference that the respondent father failed to attend.

The endorsement details a long history of high-conflict family litigation, marked by the father's repeated breaches of court orders, failure to pay support, and alienation of the children from the applicant mother.

The judge noted the father's misuse of judicial resources through numerous urgent and meritless motions.

To control the court's process and protect the children, the judge ordered that neither party may bring further motions without prior leave obtained at a case conference.

The judge also ordered the father to arrange for after-care therapy and warned of severe sanctions, including contempt or striking of pleadings, if he continued to flout court orders.

Lawrence Mark Dale sought leave to extend the time for appealing three interlocutory orders made by Faieta J., along with a stay of those orders, directions for the case, and an order appointing a lawyer for his children.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Dale failed to satisfy the test for granting an extension of time to appeal, particularly regarding the merits of the proposed appeals and his explanations for delay.

The court also noted Dale's wilful breaches of previous court orders.

The applicant sought costs for several motions held earlier in the year.

The respondent failed to provide responding costs submissions.

The court found the applicant's behaviour on the motions reasonable, proportional, and primarily focused on the children's well-being, leading to successful orders.

Conversely, the respondent's behaviour was deemed unreasonable throughout and rose to the level of "bad faith" inflicting harm on the applicant and children by making them pawns in the litigation.

Applying the Courts of Justice Act and Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant costs on a full recovery basis due to the respondent's bad faith, totaling $69,419.86, and ordered the respondent to pay an additional $4,485.00 to an expert witness, Ms. Linda Popielarczyk.

The court addressed two motions.

The Respondent's "urgent" motion to vary a custody order and appoint counsel for the oldest son was dismissed due to non-compliance with Family Law Rules regarding notice, service, and the lack of actual urgency or exceptional circumstances.

The Applicant's Form 14B motion for leave to file an Amended Application was granted, as the Respondent had previously consented and no disadvantage was shown.

A second part of the Applicant's motion regarding children's items was deferred as largely moot.

The Applicant sought temporary sole custody and an order for the children's participation in the Family Bridges Program due to the Respondent father's ongoing disparagement of the Applicant and non-compliance with court orders, which was causing emotional harm to their three children.

The Respondent had previously failed to comply with support orders and parenting plan arrangements, leading to the temporary suspension of his access.

The court granted the Applicant temporary sole custody and ordered participation in the Family Bridges Program, with the Respondent to record phone calls and both parties to share upfront costs.

The court emphasized the children's best interests and the Respondent's continued disregard for court orders and the children's well-being.