G.A. MacPherson

The applicant brought a motion to sever the divorce from corollary issues and for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for increased interim child and spousal support.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, finding no compelling reasons to preclude it, and severed the divorce.

The court imputed income to both parties and ordered the applicant to pay $5,300 in monthly child support and $14,000 in monthly spousal support based on a three-year average of his business income.

Following a motion regarding spousal support and striking pleadings where success was divided, the parties submitted written submissions on costs.

The applicant sought $10,000, while the respondent sought no costs or $10,000 payable to him.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party and noted the respondent's unreasonable litigation behaviour, including failing to provide disclosure or comply with court orders.

The court awarded the applicant $9,000 in costs.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for non-compliance with court orders and lack of financial disclosure, and sought temporary spousal support.

The court declined to strike the pleadings, noting it is a remedy of last resort, but ordered the respondent to obtain a civil divorce forthwith and cooperate with the applicant's request for a religious divorce (Talaq).

The court imputed income to both parties and ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support of $2,600 per month, retroactive to May 1, 2020, to account for delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The parties, who were separated and unable to agree on their three-year-old child's kindergarten enrollment, brought a motion to determine the issue.

The applicant father sought enrollment at Thornhill Nursery School and Kindergarten, while the respondent mother sought enrollment at Associated Hebrew Schools.

The court determined that attending Associated Hebrew Schools was in the child's best interests, as it provided both academic and religious instruction during the week, avoiding the need for supplemental weekend schooling that would interfere with parenting time.

The court ordered the child to attend Associated Hebrew Schools and directed the parties to share the tuition costs proportionate to their incomes.

The applicant brought motions to enforce a final consent order requiring the respondent to pay her $300,000, seeking partition and sale of the matrimonial home, and for reunification therapy with their children.

The respondent had failed to make the payment and the applicant was left 'couch surfing'.

The court ordered the partition and sale of the matrimonial home, defeating a concurrent life interest held by the respondent's mother, with compensation to be paid from the respondent's share.

The court also ordered the children to attend reunification therapy at the respondent's expense, noting the children had been inappropriately exposed to the litigation.

The respondent father brought a motion to dismiss the applicant mother's claims for divorce and custody on jurisdictional grounds, and for the return of the children to Dubai.

The mother had fled Dubai with the children, alleging domestic violence, and claimed refugee status in Canada.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction under the Divorce Act because neither party had been ordinarily resident in Ontario for one year prior to the application.

However, the court assumed jurisdiction over custody and access under the Children's Law Reform Act, finding the children were habitually resident in Ontario due to the father's delay and acquiescence, and alternatively, that the children had a real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' two children to Florida.

The mother had relocated the children to Ontario without the father's consent, breaching their shared parenting agreement.

The mother opposed the return, arguing under Article 13 that returning the children posed a grave risk of harm and that the children objected to returning.

The court found no evidence of grave risk and determined that the children's objections were significantly influenced by the mother and not substantial.

The court ordered the children to be returned to Florida.