Frances P. Kiteley

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an annulment of her marriage on three grounds: lack of mental capacity at the time of marriage, the respondent's fraudulent intent to secure sponsorship, and non-consummation due to the respondent's refusal.

The court dismissed all grounds for annulment, finding the applicant had capacity to marry, no evidence of fraudulent intent for sponsorship, and insufficient evidence to prove non-consummation due to the respondent's incapacity or inability rather than mere refusal.

The respondent's claims for equalization of net family property and loan repayment were also dismissed.

The applicant was granted leave to amend her application to claim a divorce based on separation.

This endorsement addresses procedural issues arising from a prior order in a family law matter concerning child support.

The court clarifies the scope of motions, enforces strict filing limits, and dismisses numerous requests for disclosure and questioning as premature or outside the established timetable.

The judge emphasizes adherence to previous directions and the Notice to the Profession, aiming to streamline the proceedings for the temporary child support motion.

The Applicant, Jennifer Dixon, surreptitiously accessed and stored thousands of the Respondent, Peter Lindsay's, private and privileged emails after their separation.

The Respondent brought a motion seeking a declaration that the emails were improperly obtained and an order preventing their use.

The court found that Dixon deliberately accessed the emails without consent, rejecting her claims of consensual access and inadvertent storage.

The court declared the emails "stolen" and prohibited Dixon from using or referring to them in any legal proceeding.

Dixon was ordered to provide full particulars of her access, return and destroy all copies, and instruct any third parties to do the same.

The court also ordered Dixon to pay full indemnity costs to the Respondent due to her bad faith conduct.

The applicant father brought a motion for an uncontested trial and divorce after the respondent mother abducted their child to South Korea without notice or consent.

The court granted the applicant sole custody of the child, ordered the respondent to pay child support based on imputed income, issued restraining orders preventing the respondent from communicating directly with the child or approaching the applicant's residence or the child's school, and granted the divorce.

Due to the respondent's unreasonable conduct and bad faith, the court awarded the applicant full recovery costs.

The Applicant sought orders to vary a previous order to allow virtual showings and videographer access for the sale of the matrimonial home, and for carriage of sale if the Respondent did not comply.

The Respondent opposed these requests and sought to appoint co-agents for the sale.

The court granted the Applicant's request for virtual showings and videographer access with modifications, dismissing the request for carriage of sale.

The Respondent's request for co-agents was dismissed.

The court emphasized adapting marketing strategies to the COVID-19 pandemic while ensuring safety.

The mother (O.P.) appealed a summary judgment decision that placed her children in extended society care for adoption planning with discretionary access.

The motion judge had applied an incorrect summary judgment test.

The appellate court, applying the correct legal framework under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA), found no palpable and overriding errors in the factual findings regarding parental neglect, lack of insight, and failure to follow recommendations.

The court affirmed that extended society care was in the children's best interests, considering their stability with the kin caregiver and their mature understanding of their needs versus their wishes.

The appeal was dismissed.

The father, R.W., appealed a summary judgment that placed his children in the extended care of the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto.

R.W. failed to perfect his appeal by the court-ordered deadline, leading the Society to bring a motion to dismiss it.

The court dismissed R.W.'s appeal, noting that he would benefit from any order made in a companion appeal brought by the mother, O.P., effectively making his separate appeal redundant.

This endorsement addresses parenting issues arising from a motion and cross-motion between separated parents.

The Respondent sought temporary parenting orders for their two children, R. and B., including primary residence arrangements and specific visiting schedules.

The Applicant opposed these orders.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion, finding that, despite the urgency, it was not possible to make specific orders in the children's best interests given the high level of parental conflict, contradictory evidence, and the pending s. 30 assessment.

The court noted the children's giftedness and anxiety, and the lack of a safe, structured environment for inter-sibling visits.

The parties were urged to pursue mediation and communicate to resolve parenting and financial issues.

The Applicant brought an urgent motion for temporary child and spousal support.

The court determined the motion was urgent given the Applicant's need for accommodation.

The primary issue was the Respondent's income for support calculations.

The court rejected the Respondent's lower estimate for 2020 due to insufficient explanation and belated disclosure, instead relying on his 2018 Line 150 income of $2,256,040.

Based on this income, the court ordered the Respondent to pay $43,437 per month in temporary spousal support and $16,663 per month in temporary child support for one child, adopting the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range due to potential pandemic financial impacts.

The Applicant sought an urgent motion to impose strict COVID-19 physical distancing measures on the Respondent and to suspend his parenting time, citing concerns about his adherence to protocols.

The Respondent brought a cross-motion for an immediate 50/50 parenting schedule.

The court dismissed both the Applicant's motion for specific protocols and the Respondent's cross-motion for a new schedule, finding neither urgent nor justified.

The court emphasized the presumption of continuing existing parenting arrangements and ordered the parties to follow government health directives and agree on make-up parenting time for the Respondent.

The parties, Adam and Amanda Rothschild, sought an urgent case conference to resolve disputes arising from their Minutes of Settlement concerning the sale of the matrimonial home.

Key issues included the selection of a listing agent, the listing date, necessary repairs, and the applicant's access to the home, all complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court addressed the interpretation and enforcement of the Minutes of Settlement in light of these unforeseen circumstances.

This case involved a motion and cross-motion concerning interim parenting arrangements for two children, O. (almost 9) and T. (12), following the parents' separation.

The mother (applicant) had unilaterally relocated with O. and changed her school, while the father (respondent) sought O.'s return to her former school and residence.

The court addressed the children's residence, school, and parenting time, considering the best interests of the children, the impact of the mother's unilateral actions, and the special needs of T. The court also had to consider the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its effect on school operations and parenting schedules.

The mother was granted interim parenting time and decision-making for O. (excluding the September 2020 school decision), and the father for T. O.'s current school placement in Markham was maintained temporarily.

A specific interim parenting schedule was set, accounting for school closures due to COVID-19.

Neither party was awarded costs.

A case conference was ordered for June 2020 to address O.'s school for September 2020 and the OCL's position.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for temporary parenting and child/spousal support.

The respondent initially opposed the urgency but later agreed to an expedited hearing for both the applicant's motion and an anticipated cross-motion.

The court found both parenting and support issues to be urgent, particularly given the children's living arrangements and the applicant's need for income to secure permanent accommodation.

The court scheduled the motions, set deadlines for material filing, and ordered the initialization of the parties' names in the style of cause.

The court also provided guidance on the s. 30 assessment and encouraged mediation.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions in a family law proceeding.

The court reviewed the continuation of a temporary spousal support order for a personal care assistant (PCA) and decided on two Form 14B motions for leave to bring further motions.

The Respondent sought leave to compel production of the Applicant's entire medical file, which was denied due to disproportionality and lack of necessity.

The Applicant sought leave for several reliefs, including striking affidavits, a restraining order, and interim disbursements.

The court dismissed most of the Applicant's requests for leave but granted leave for a motion for interim costs, recognizing the complexity of the Respondent's financial affairs and the need to "level the playing field." The court also clarified its ongoing case management role.

The Applicant sought full indemnity costs following successful motions related to the enforcement of a Consent and Minutes of Settlement for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The Respondent opposed, arguing her actions were not in bad faith and she lacked the financial means to pay.

The court found the Respondent's behaviour unreasonable, particularly her attempts to renegotiate or set aside the settlement and her persistence in positions already dismissed.

While not constituting bad faith, her conduct warranted a costs award.

The Applicant was awarded costs on a full indemnity basis, reduced by 10 hours due to issues with his counsel's drafting of the consent order.

The total award of $34,394 was ordered to be paid from the Respondent's share of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home.

This endorsement from a case conference addresses the management of two intertwined proceedings: a family law application (divorce, spousal support, equalization, trust claims) and a guardianship proceeding.

The court prioritized the family law application, scheduling a combined settlement and trial management conference.

It also addressed disclosure issues, compliance with previous orders (costs, property listing), and clarified the procedural nature of prior decisions.

The court declined to set a hearing date for the guardianship application at this time.

The applicant sought a vesting order for the matrimonial home to ensure its sale, following the respondent's initial non-compliance with an order to sign a listing agreement.

The court dismissed the vesting order motion, finding that the applicant did not meet the criteria under s. 100 of the Courts of Justice Act and the Norris test, as there was no underlying claim to ownership or payment order.

Despite the dismissal of the vesting order, the respondent was ordered to pay $2,000 in costs to the applicant due to her unreasonable conduct in initially refusing to sign the listing agreement.

R.A.R., the father of A.J.H-R., brought a motion in the Superior Court seeking to set aside an adoption order and extend the time to appeal a Crown Wardship order, which was granted without access in 2011.

This action was prompted by the Motherisk Commission's finding that hair follicle tests significantly influenced the original wardship decision.

The current motion was for directions on the proper procedural route, venue, and statutory pathway, with R.A.R. relying on sections 7 and 24 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court adjourned the procedural motion to allow the newly retained counsel for the adoptive parents to take instructions and to encourage the parties to explore alternative dispute resolution, such as mediation, given the complex issues involved.

The respondent, Joanne Chuvalo, brought a motion under Family Law Rule 25(19)(b) to correct an order declaring George Chuvalo lacked capacity to reconcile, seeking to change its designation from "temporary" to "final." The court dismissed the motion, finding that the original order was correctly designated as "temporary" because capacity is fluid and the order did not finally dispose of all substantive issues in the ongoing divorce application.

The court clarified the distinction between temporary and final orders, applying the "classic test" that an order is interlocutory if the merits of the case remain to be determined.

The court also found no common intention between counsel to designate the order as "final," which is a requirement for correcting a mistake under Rule 25(19)(b).

Costs were awarded to the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The applicant, Joanne Chuvalo, brought a motion for directions in a guardianship application concerning George Chuvalo.

She sought extensive disclosure of medical, financial, and legal records, and orders to revoke powers of attorney for property and personal care held by George's children, Mitchell and Vanessa Chuvalo.

The court narrowed the scope of disclosure, limiting medical records to periods surrounding the creation of the powers of attorney and dismissing most requests for financial and legal records as premature or disproportionate.

The primary issues were identified as the validity and potential revocation of the 2014 and 2016 powers of attorney.

Costs were reserved to the judge hearing the main guardianship application.