George A. MacPherson

The respondent brought a motion in family proceedings seeking dismissal of the applicant's claims on grounds of res judicata, issue estoppel, and statute of limitations.

The applicant had previously litigated divorce, Mahr, spousal support, and equalization claims before Iranian courts, which rendered final decisions on those issues.

The Ontario divorce had been granted in 2020 by a prior order that was never appealed or varied.

The applicant's equalization claim was also statute-barred under s. 7(3) of the Family Law Act as it was advanced more than two years after the divorce.

The applicant failed to attend three Trial Scheduling Conferences and did not appear at or file materials for this motion.

All claims were dismissed as res judicata, statute-barred, or abandoned, and costs of $20,000 were awarded to the moving party.

The respondent sought an urgent order for the child to relocate to Vancouver, asserting the applicant's consent to relocation and her primary caregiving role.

The applicant cross-moved for the child to reside primarily in Ontario.

The court found Ontario had jurisdiction as the child was habitually resident there.

The court determined that the applicant had consented to the child's relocation to Vancouver, evidenced by a signed travel consent and purchased airline tickets.

Applying the onus on the applicant to establish that the relocation was not in the child's best interests, the court found it was in the child's best interest to relocate with the respondent to Vancouver on an interim basis, given the respondent was the primary caregiver and had made extensive arrangements in Vancouver.

This family law trial addressed complex issues of decision-making authority, parenting time, mobility, spousal support, child support, equalization, and a restraining order.

The court found the respondent engaged in parental alienation and obstructive litigation conduct, including refusing therapy and sharing court documents with the children.

The applicant was granted sole decision-making authority and primary residence of the two minor children, with a 120-day no-contact restraining order against the respondent to facilitate reunification therapy.

The respondent's request to relocate the children to Switzerland was denied.

Spousal support claims were dismissed for both parties, and child support was ordered from the respondent based on imputed income.

The applicant sought to sever the divorce from corollary relief, allowing it to proceed uncontested.

The respondent opposed, arguing potential legal disadvantage if the applicant died intestate, and brought a cross-motion for extensive financial disclosure.

The court granted the severance, finding no legal disadvantage to the respondent, as claims under the Family Law Act and Succession Law Reform Act could continue, and the respondent's argument was speculative.

The court also found that reasonable arrangements for child support had been made.

Regarding disclosure, the court granted a more proportionate disclosure order, limiting the scope of the respondent's extensive request.

The Applicant sought a final order on an uncontested basis after the Respondent's pleadings were struck due to persistent non-compliance with disclosure orders.

The court addressed financial issues including child support, equalization, post-separation adjustments, and costs.

The court imputed an annual income of $1,200,000 to the Respondent due to his failure to provide disclosure and his implausible reported income.

Lump sum child support of $2,303,606 was awarded retroactively and prospectively until each child turns 21, along with $45,944.83 for retroactive section 7 expenses.

An equalization payment of $9,123,836 and post-separation adjustments of $115,592.58 were also ordered.

Pre-judgment interest was awarded.

The court found the Respondent's litigation conduct amounted to bad faith and awarded the Applicant $200,000 in legal fees and disbursements on a full recovery basis.

The court also ordered the transfer of properties and sale proceeds to the Applicant to satisfy the amounts owed.

The Applicant sought an order for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home and distribution of its contents.

The Respondent opposed the sale and filed a cross-motion to amend his pleadings to include a claim for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court affirmed the Applicant's prima facie right to sale, finding that the Respondent failed to establish a prima facie case for a competing interest, such as exclusive possession, under the Family Law Act.

The Respondent's arguments regarding his health, financial vulnerability, and the stability of an adult child were not persuasive enough to defeat the sale.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home and allowed the Respondent to amend his pleadings, but with costs payable to the Applicant.

The Respondent brought an urgent motion seeking to prevent the Applicant from relocating their child, A.L.R., from Thornhill to Barrie.

The court found that the Respondent failed to comply with the notice and objection requirements under sections 16.9 and 16.91 of the Divorce Act, thereby authorizing the relocation by statute.

Despite this, the court also considered the best interests of the child under section 16.92 of the Divorce Act, noting the Applicant's reasons for the move (husband's job relocation), the modest impact on parenting time, the child primarily residing with the Applicant, and the Applicant's compliance with notice provisions.

The Respondent's motion was dismissed, and the Applicant was permitted to relocate the child.

The applicant sought to strike the respondent's answer, prevent further court orders, obtain directions regarding discovery evidence use between related civil and family proceedings, and appoint an expert to value the respondent's corporate shares and income.

The respondent cross-moved to add family members as parties and compel their disclosure/questioning, and for general disclosure from the applicant.

The court dismissed the applicant's requests to strike pleadings and prevent further orders, and the respondent's requests to add parties and compel non-party disclosure.

The court granted, by consent, the use of civil discovery evidence in the family case, ordered an expert income report for the respondent, and ordered specific financial disclosure from the applicant.

The respondent brought a motion seeking to dismiss the applicant's spousal support claim on the basis that she did not meet the definition of "spouse" under the Family Law Act.

The applicant brought a cross-motion for interim disbursements.

The court dismissed the applicant's adjournment request, finding she had ample time to secure counsel.

Applying the Hryniak v. Hryniak summary judgment framework, the court determined that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on the threshold question of whether the applicant was a spouse.

Based on extensive objective evidence, including the parties' statutory declaration for immigration purposes, tax returns, driver's licenses, and third-party affidavits, the court found that the parties did not cohabit continuously for three years and did not otherwise meet the definition of "spouse" as interpreted by the Molodowich v. Penttinen factors.

The court noted significant credibility issues with the applicant's evidence.

Consequently, the respondent's motion was granted, and the applicant's claims were dismissed.

The Respondent brought a motion seeking extensive financial disclosure and orders regarding life insurance policies from the Applicant.

The Applicant filed a cross-motion for disclosure and other relief.

The court characterized the parties' litigation as a "train wreck" due to serial motions and non-compliance with disclosure, deeming it an abuse of process.

The judge ordered the Applicant to comply with previous disclosure orders and specific requests from the Respondent's business valuator within 30 days.

All other scheduled motions were vacated, and the parties were directed to a case conference to manage the matter towards a trial.

The respondent brought a motion to change a 2016 child support order and reduce approximately $66,000 in arrears, claiming a material change in circumstances.

The court found no material change, noting the respondent's consistent pattern of non-disclosure, evasive testimony, and disregard for multiple court orders.

The court drew an adverse inference against the respondent due to his lack of credibility and willful non-compliance with disclosure obligations.

The motion to change was dismissed, and all child support arrears remained fully payable.

The Applicant brought an urgent motion seeking the return of the child to Ontario, an order vesting property in her name, orders restraining property depletion, and leave to file a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL).

The court dismissed the motion.

It found the child's habitual residence was in China, not Canada, and declined jurisdiction over the child's return.

For the CPL, the Applicant failed to provide an undertaking for damages and did not sufficiently demonstrate a triable issue regarding her interest in the property, which was not a matrimonial home and was registered solely in the Respondent's name.

The court also noted that China appeared to be the more appropriate forum for resolving the parties' claims, given the child's and Respondent's residence, and the location of most marital assets.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a motion heard on September 16, 2020.

The Applicant sought $10,000 in costs, while the Respondent requested no costs or $10,000 from the Applicant.

The court found divided success on the underlying motion issues (striking pleadings, spousal support, indexing support), but determined the Applicant was the more successful party, particularly regarding spousal support.

The Respondent's litigation behaviour was deemed unreasonable due to non-compliance with orders and lack of cooperation.

Considering the divided success, the Respondent's unreasonable conduct, and offers to settle, the court awarded the Applicant $9,000 in costs, inclusive of HST.

Costs for a prior case conference were not awarded as they were not reserved to the motion judge.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to strike the respondent's pleadings, and for spousal support retroactive to the date of separation, with annual indexing.

The court declined to strike the respondent's pleadings, deeming it a remedy of last resort, but ordered the respondent to comply with prior orders for financial disclosure and obtaining a civil divorce, and to cooperate with the applicant's request for a Talaq.

The court imputed an annual income of $100,000 to the respondent and $15,000 to the applicant, and ordered temporary spousal support of $2,600 per month, retroactive to May 1, 2020.

The request for indexing spousal support was denied as it was a temporary order.

The respondent, Muhammad Ali, brought an urgent motion to terminate a warrant for committal for 118 days, issued due to child support arrears, citing the risks of incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic as a material change in circumstances.

The Family Responsibility Office (FRO) opposed the termination, arguing the request was res judicata and correctional facilities had implemented protective measures.

The court found the motion urgent due to pandemic risks.

While acknowledging the need for enforcement, the court suspended the warrant of committal, rather than terminating it, to protect the respondent from COVID-19 exposure, allowing FRO to seek to lift the suspension once pandemic risks subside.

This endorsement addresses two urgent motions during the COVID-19 pandemic: one brought by the York Regional Police to remove police enforcement clauses from existing parenting orders, and another by the Respondent seeking urgent payment of a previously ordered costs award.

The court granted the police motion, finding that repeated police enforcement was not a sustainable solution for chronic non-compliance in high-conflict custody cases and posed risks to the children, especially during the pandemic.

The court dismissed the Respondent's urgent motion for costs, determining it did not meet the criteria for an emergency motion during the judicial suspension, as a costs order already existed.

M.A. brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the child, U.M.A., to Worcester, Massachusetts.

R.K. opposed, arguing the Convention was inapplicable or, alternatively, that exceptions under Article 13 applied.

The court found that U.M.A., born in Canada and having never been to the U.S., was habitually resident in Canada.

Applying the hybrid approach from Balev, the court determined that the focal point of the child's life was Canada.

The Hague Convention application was dismissed, and the Ontario Court assumed jurisdiction for custody and access matters under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The applicant, Kathleen Michaud, and respondent, Bill Kasali, were involved in a motion to change child support orders.

The primary issue was the respondent's consistent lack of financial disclosure and the determination of his income for child support purposes.

The court reviewed previous trials where the respondent's credibility was questioned due to false financial statements, undisclosed assets, and evasive testimony regarding his residence and businesses, including significant foreign income.

The court imputed income to the respondent for several years based on newly discovered IRS records and Canadian pension income, converting US income to CAD.

Child support obligations for the two children were terminated effective January 1, 2017, for Tina and May 1, 2018, for Anthony, as they ceased to be full-time students.

The Respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce an alleged settlement agreement reached during a settlement meeting.

The Applicant, who was self-represented at the meeting, denied a binding agreement was formed, asserting discussions were for settlement purposes only.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion, finding no binding agreement due to a lack of consensus on essential terms, vagueness regarding equalization and spousal support, and the Applicant's lack of independent legal advice, which prevented informed consent.

The respondent mother brought a motion to vary a final custody order to permit her to relocate with the child, Charlee, to Wisconsin to live with her new husband and their infant child.

The applicant father opposed the move, requesting Charlee reside with him if the mother relocated.

The court found a material change in circumstances and, applying the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act and Children's Law Reform Act, permitted the mother to relocate with Charlee.

The court found the mother's detailed plan for Charlee's care and access to the father superior to the father's vague proposal, emphasizing the importance of Charlee's primary attachment to the mother and the sibling relationship.