George A. MacPherson

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' child to Cyprus.

The respondent mother had travelled to Canada with the child for what the father claimed was a one-month vacation, but she retained the child in Canada, alleging the father consented to a permanent move and that returning the child would expose him to a grave risk of harm due to domestic violence.

The court found the child's habitual residence was Cyprus and that the father did not consent to a permanent relocation.

The court rejected the mother's allegations of domestic violence, finding her evidence lacked credibility and detail, and concluded the Article 13(b) grave risk exception was not met.

The child was ordered returned to Cyprus.

At the commencement of a continued trial on parenting time, the applicant father brought a motion to strike the respondent mother's pleadings due to her continuous and willful breach of numerous court orders.

The court found that the mother had engaged in severe parental alienation, refused to participate in court-ordered reunification therapy, and repeatedly breached supervised parenting orders, including an incident requiring police enforcement.

Applying Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court struck the mother's answer and trial affidavit.

The court ordered that the mother's parenting time be at the sole discretion of the father, finding that a step-up parenting plan was not in the child's best interests given the mother's lack of insight and ongoing alienating behaviours.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found the affidavit evidence from both parties to be highly contradictory on fundamental issues, including the children's primary residence, payment of expenses, and the parties' respective roles in the family business.

Given the irreconcilable evidence, the need for credibility findings, and an imminent trial scheduled in three months, the court dismissed the motion and reserved costs to the trial judge.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for ongoing non-disclosure and failure to comply with court orders.

The respondent, who resides abroad, failed to provide extensive financial disclosure regarding his foreign corporate interests, despite a consent order requiring him to do so.

Much of the disclosure provided was in Russian without certified translations, contrary to the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found the respondent's non-compliance to be wilful, tactical, and obstructionist, noting his history of ignoring previous support and property sale orders.

The motion was granted, the respondent's pleadings were struck, and the applicant was permitted to proceed to an uncontested trial.

The parties cohabited for 16 years and had two children.

Following separation, the applicant sought child support, section 7 expenses, and enforcement of a trust agreement regarding a property, while the respondent sought spousal support, equalization, and a trust interest in the applicant's properties.

The court imputed an income of $100,000 to the respondent due to his failure to provide financial disclosure and his concealment of corporate interests, ordering retroactive and ongoing child support.

The respondent's claims for spousal support, equalization, and property interests were dismissed, as were the applicant's claims for a restraining order and reimbursement under the trust agreement, which was found to be statute-barred.

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.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, life insurance as security, and disclosure.

The respondent, a self-employed IT consultant operating through a personal services corporation, argued his income was lower due to retained earnings and reduced hours from a medical condition.

The court imputed income to the respondent, finding no valid business reason to retain pre-tax corporate earnings and noting he was underemployed compared to his medical restrictions.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $2,250 per month and maintain $700,000 in life insurance designating the applicant as the irrevocable beneficiary.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support, the sale of the matrimonial home, and the release of funds.

The parties consented to the sale of the home and the release of certain funds.

On the contested issue of temporary spousal support, the court found that the applicant, who earns $157,000 annually and recently completed her Ph.D., did not establish a prima facie case for either compensatory or non-compensatory support.

The motion for temporary spousal support was dismissed.

The applicant father and respondent mother engaged in a high-conflict parenting dispute over their 9-year-old child.

The court found that the respondent mother had engaged in severe parental alienation, resulting in the child having no contact with the applicant for over two years and exhibiting a resist-refuse dynamic.

Finding that the mother lacked insight and had sabotaged reunification efforts, the court determined it was in the child's best interests to reverse primary residence and award sole decision-making authority to the applicant father.

The respondent was ordered to pay child support based on an imputed income.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, seeking to impute an income of $250,005 to the respondent father, a pilot whose employment in Qatar was recently terminated.

Both parties claimed mental health issues impacting their ability to work.

The court declined to impute income to the respondent, finding insufficient evidence of intentional underemployment, and instead based child support on his new conditional employment salary of $74,285.

Temporary spousal support was dismissed as the parties' current incomes were similar, and section 7 expenses were ordered to be shared proportionately.

The parties separated after a long marriage characterized by the Applicant's controlling and abusive behaviour towards the Respondent.

Following separation, the Applicant engaged in a relentless campaign of parental alienation, successfully alienating the older child and attempting to alienate the younger child, E.S. The Applicant falsely alleged the Respondent had severe mental health issues to justify withholding the children.

The court found the Respondent's mental health was stable and that the Applicant's alienating conduct constituted family violence.

To protect E.S. from further alienation, the court ordered that E.S. reside primarily with the Respondent, who was granted exclusive decision-making authority, with the Applicant receiving specified parenting time.

The applicant brought an interim motion for child and spousal support.

Both parties were self-employed.

The court imputed the applicant's income at $100,000 based on her consulting contract.

For the respondent, who owned a holding company with a 50% interest in a dental distribution business, the court applied section 18 of the Child Support Guidelines to attribute pre-tax corporate income to him.

The court found the respondent had effective control over dividend declarations and there was no business reason for retaining the earnings.

The respondent's income was determined to be $820,000.

The court ordered interim spousal support of $16,000 per month and child support of $10,000 per month.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for the jointly held matrimonial home and sought punitive damages.

The applicant alleged fraud and deceit because the respondent did not disclose that the numbered company purchasing the home was owned by the respondent's parents.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant had executed the agreement, the identity of the purchaser was not a material term, no false statement was made, and the applicant suffered no damages as the offer was unconditional and above the list price.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce a written offer to settle made by the respondent.

During a settlement meeting, the respondent orally stated the offer was 'no longer on the table', but the applicant subsequently accepted the offer in writing before the respondent withdrew it in writing.

The court held that under the Family Law Rules and contract law, an oral pronouncement cannot displace a written offer to settle.

The court found no clear injustice in enforcing the settlement and ordered that the offer to settle is enforceable.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to find the respondent in contempt of two previous court orders regarding the preservation of business assets and the transfer of $160,000.

The court found that while the respondent breached the orders, he could not be found in contempt because one order was for the payment of money, and the other breaches were not deliberate due to COVID-19 business closures.

However, under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered the respondent to transfer the $160,000 into trust within 30 days, failing which his answer would be struck.

The court also granted the applicant's request for third-party banking records.

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.

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 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.