Geoffrey Wells

Following a trial where the applicant was awarded $3 million in lump-sum spousal support, the court determined the applicant's entitlement to prejudgment interest and costs.

The court awarded $129,698 in prejudgment interest, finding no reason to exercise its discretion to disallow it.

The court also awarded the applicant $670,000 in costs, noting she was entirely successful on the primary issue of spousal support and had made a qualifying offer to settle that entitled her to full recovery of costs from the date of the offer.

The applicant sought spousal support, unjust enrichment relief, and a mutual no-contact order arising from a disputed common-law relationship with an extremely wealthy respondent.

The court found the parties cohabited in a conjugal relationship from January 1, 2019 to August 23, 2023, applying the Molodowich factors holistically and relying heavily on contemporaneous records, caregiving evidence, and surreptitious recordings admitted for their high probative value.

The applicant failed to establish compensatory entitlement, but succeeded on a non-compensatory basis because of the enormous income disparity, her disability, and the steep post-separation drop from a highly luxurious standard of living.

The court imputed support income to the respondent using investible assets, fixed support at approximately $200,000 monthly for three years, and converted that award into a $3,000,000 lump sum.

The unjust enrichment claim and request for a restraining order were dismissed.

The applicant in a family law proceeding brought a motion for pre-trial questioning and disclosure from three non-party witnesses: her former doctor and two former friends.

The applicant alleged the respondent used his significant wealth to unduly influence the witnesses.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant failed to establish that it would be unfair to proceed to trial without the requested orders under Rules 19(11) and 20(5) of the Family Law Rules.

The court noted that the rules do not provide a right to cross-examine witnesses before trial simply to test credibility.

The mother appealed an arbitral award that enforced a shared parenting schedule previously agreed upon in an Amending Separation Agreement.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in law by the arbitrator, who had properly considered and rejected the mother's arguments of duress and lack of true agreement.

The court emphasized the significant deference owed to arbitral decisions and characterized the appeal as unmeritorious.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the father.

The court heard two motions in a family law proceeding.

The respondent sought child and spousal support, retroactive section 7 expenses, and authority to sell the matrimonial home.

The applicant sought to vary a preservation order to allow the sale of pharmacies.

The court dismissed both motions, finding the evidentiary records insufficient and noting the parties' complex financial arrangements and potential breaches of the preservation order.

The court ordered the matter to proceed to trial, directed the release of trust funds to pay matrimonial home debts, and ordered interim child support.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated February 17, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,700.

The Applicant brought an urgent motion to vary a Preservation and Non-Dissipating Order to permit the purchase of three pharmacies and the sale of two others, proposing to hold net proceeds in trust.

The Respondent opposed, arguing that the Applicant's financial disclosure was inadequate and that varying the order would prejudice her claims for equalization, child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion, finding that the Applicant had not provided sufficient security to meet anticipated obligations due to significant discrepancies and inconsistencies in his financial disclosures regarding net worth, income, and asset leveraging.

The court emphasized the need for full transparency to assess the magnitude of the Respondent's claims and the Applicant's ability to satisfy them.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking a preservation of assets order, a preservation of documents order, and an order to assign carriage and control of a condominium unit to her for purchase and appraisal.

The preservation of documents order was granted mutually by consent.

However, the preservation of assets order and the condominium order were denied due to the applicant's failure to provide a statutory basis, financial statements, a Net Family Property Statement, or any calculation of an alleged equalization payment.

The court found the applicant failed to meet the onus to demonstrate a likely equalization payment.

The motion was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs to the respondent.

The applicant sought the release of her 50% interest in the net proceeds from the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The respondent initially did not oppose this motion but attempted to bring an improper cross-motion for the release of his own share, which was rejected by the court filing office.

The court granted the applicant's motion, finding it unopposed and properly before the court, while dismissing the respondent's attempt to proceed with his non-compliant cross-motion.

The court also awarded costs to the applicant due to the respondent's unreasonable and obstructionist behaviour.

This is a costs decision following a family law trial concerning decision-making responsibility, parenting time, property equalization, child support, and special expenses.

The applicant sought costs, arguing he was more successful, while the respondent sought partial indemnity costs, claiming greater success.

The court found mixed success on financial issues, with the respondent succeeding on decision-making responsibility.

Neither party fully succeeded on parenting time, which was ultimately settled.

The court considered the parties' conduct, including unreasonable behaviour (applicant due to ABI, respondent regarding negative influence on children), and offers to settle.

Despite the applicant's financial hardship, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent $40,000 in costs, finding the respondent achieved substantial recovery on decision-making and some recovery on parenting time.

The father (M.H.) appealed orders from the Ontario Court of Justice in a child protection application, including the striking of his answer and the award of custody to the mother (M.D.) with supervised access for him.

The father had refused to participate in virtual proceedings due to religious beliefs.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that while the motion judge did not err in denying an adjournment, she erred in interpreting or applying Rule 1(8.2) of the Family Law Rules by striking the father's answer without considering if the delay would be unfair, and by failing to fully consider the child's best interests when making the final custody order, relying on an incomplete Statement of Agreed Facts.

The matter was remitted to the Ontario Court for an expedited hearing.

The respondent wife moved for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant husband's claim to set aside three domestic agreements (a Marriage Contract, a Separation Agreement, and an Amending Agreement).

The husband argued the agreements should be set aside under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act due to duress, undue influence, unconscionability, and lack of financial disclosure.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that the highly conflictual evidence, significant credibility issues, and allegations of a history of abuse created genuine issues requiring a trial.

MacDonald & Partners LLP brought a motion to be removed as solicitors of record for the applicant and respondent in consolidated civil and family law proceedings.

The clients opposed the motion and sought an adjournment.

The court found a fundamental breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, including an inability to obtain adequate instructions and a breakdown in communications.

Applying the principles from Cunningham v. Lilles, the court granted the motion to remove counsel, finding it would not cause serious harm to the administration of justice, and dismissed the clients' cross-motion for an adjournment.

The parties separated in 2013 and have two children.

The father, who has an acquired brain injury, sought joint custody and shared parenting, while the mother sought sole custody and termination of the father's parenting time.

The court found that the father's brain injury impaired his ability to parent and control his anger, and that the mother had failed to protect the children from alienating comments about the father.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother but declined to terminate the father's parenting time, instead ordering a structured resumption of supervised therapeutic parenting time conditional upon the father engaging in parenting skills and anger management therapy, and the children engaging in reunification therapy.

Following a motion for unsupervised and increased access where the applicant father was largely successful, he sought costs of $15,000.

The respondent mother opposed, citing divided success and inability to pay.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party but reduced the requested amount due to proportionality, unreasonable time docketed, and the respondent's financial circumstances.

The respondent was ordered to pay $7,500 in costs for the motion, with no costs awarded for the mandatory case conference.

Following a trial where the applicant was largely successful in obtaining child support, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The applicant sought $20,000, while the respondent suggested $10,000.

The court found the applicant was more reasonable in settlement efforts and at trial, but reduced the requested amount because some issues were resolved on consent.

The respondent was ordered to pay $15,000 in costs, enforceable as child support.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2015 final order regarding child support and section 7 expenses for the parties' three children.

The mother sought to remove a travel credit previously granted to the respondent father and to fix his income at $65,123.00, while the father argued his income had decreased to $50,000.00.

The court rejected the father's evidence of decreased income, finding his employment income was not indicative of his actual gross income.

The court ordered the father to pay $1266.00 per month in base child support, $239.00 per month for section 7 expenses, and fixed arrears at $7714.00 for base support and $7000.00 for section 7 expenses.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding equalization, spousal support, and vesting orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's rejection of an alleged debt to the appellant's brother or the imputation of income for spousal support.

The Court upheld the vesting of two condominiums in the respondent as security for the equalization and support owed, and provided directions for the sale of the matrimonial home.

A motion was brought in a civil proceeding seeking consolidation with an ongoing family law proceeding involving the breakdown of a long marriage and disputes over ownership of corporate and real property assets.

The civil application, brought through a corporation, sought eviction of occupants from a condominium and recovery of unpaid rent, while the family proceeding raised issues of divorce, equalization, and competing claims to ownership of the corporation and related assets.

The court considered Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principle under s. 138 of the Courts of Justice Act that multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided.

Finding overlapping factual issues concerning ownership of corporate interests and property arising from the marriage, the court held that all disputes should be determined together in the family proceeding.

Consolidation was ordered to avoid abuse of process and to promote efficiency and reduced litigation costs.

The parties separated after a long marriage during which they built a successful real estate business.

Following separation, the appellant was convicted of sexual assault, unilaterally terminated the business partnership, and diverted commissions to himself.

The trial judge awarded the respondent $200,000 in lump sum spousal support.

The appellant appealed the entitlement, form, and quantum of the award, and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the fresh evidence application and the appeal, finding the lump sum award appropriately addressed the economic disadvantage and hardship suffered by the respondent.