Gerald P. Sadvari

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support, child support, and other relief, seeking to set aside the spousal support waiver in the parties' marriage contract.

The parties separated after a 30-year marriage during which they enjoyed a lavish lifestyle, and the respondent husband's net worth grew to approximately $500 million.

The court found the marriage contract's support waiver to be unconscionable and severed it from the agreement.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $175,000 per month, retroactive to the date of separation, and to maintain life insurance and health benefits for the applicant.

The claim for interim child support was dismissed.

Following a family law trial concerning property division and support, the court determined costs after receiving written submissions.

The husband had made an offer to settle that was more favourable to the wife than the eventual judgment, engaging the presumptive entitlement to costs under the Family Law Rules and supporting substantial indemnity recovery.

Although the husband sought up to $792,447.47 in full recovery costs, the court found the claim disproportionate given the relatively brief and uncomplicated four‑day trial.

Applying the fairness and reasonableness principles from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council and reviewing comparable family law authorities, the court reduced the amount significantly.

The wife was ordered to pay $265,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, with payment tied to the sale of her home unless an undertaking was not provided.

Following a long marriage with three children, the court determined property equalization, spousal support, and child support issues after the parties agreed on a parenting plan.

The primary dispute concerned valuation of significant real estate assets for net family property calculation.

The court preferred one expert appraisal over another and determined the values of the matrimonial home and a farm property, resulting in an equalization payment payable to the applicant.

Despite the long marriage and the applicant’s role as homemaker, spousal support was denied due to the applicant’s substantial assets and investment income.

Guideline child support was ordered based on the respondent’s reduced income following job loss, and the parties were required to share section 7 expenses equally.

In a post‑separation parenting dispute, the moving party sought an order requiring a psychologist to file and disclose a parenting assessment report prepared during earlier proceedings.

The court held that the report had not been formally ordered under s. 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act and, in any event, the underlying application had already been resolved by a final parenting order.

As a result, the court lacked jurisdiction to compel production of the report to the parties.

The court further held that even if jurisdiction existed, disclosure to the parents was not shown to be in the children’s best interests.

The motion was dismissed, with the court directing that the report may be provided to professionals involved with the family only upon request and awarding costs against the moving party.

In a family law proceeding following separation, the applicant brought a motion for contempt alleging the respondent breached court orders prohibiting communication, requiring mortgage payments, and mandating financial disclosure.

The court applied the three-part test for civil contempt and found the respondent deliberately and wilfully breached a non‑communication order by contacting the applicant directly despite clear court orders.

The court also found the respondent in breach of orders requiring mortgage payments and financial disclosure but declined to make additional findings of contempt for those breaches.

The respondent was ordered to attend court to purge his contempt and was directed to comply with outstanding disclosure and mortgage obligations.

The parties executed a handwritten Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) following collaborative family law negotiations.

The husband subsequently paid the wife $250,000 as agreed, but the wife later refused to finalize the formal separation agreement.

The trial judge declared the MOA invalid, finding it was merely an outline and that further financial disclosure was required.

The Court of Appeal allowed the husband's appeal, holding that the MOA contained all essential terms and the parties' conduct demonstrated an intention to be bound.

The MOA was declared a valid and binding domestic contract.

The appellant appealed a judgment ordering time-limited spousal support.

The trial judge had accepted evidence that the appellant would return to the workforce once the children were in school full-time, noting her significant earning capacity.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle in the trial judge's consideration of the appropriate factors and dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant could seek a variation in the future if circumstances warranted.

The parties separated after 23 years of marriage.

The husband, a tenured professor, had custody of their three children.

The wife, a contract teacher, made direct financial contributions to the children's expenses but did not pay periodic child support.

The husband appealed the trial judge's dismissal of his claim for retrospective child support and the award of prospective spousal support to the wife for a limited term of five years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding child support, finding the trial judge did not err in considering the wife's direct contributions.

The Court allowed the cross-appeal in part, varying the spousal support award to $950 per month payable indefinitely, recognizing the economic merger of the parties' interests over the long marriage.

The appellant appealed an order requiring him to pay a $185,000 fine for failing to produce financial documents in a family law proceeding.

The respondent brought a motion to quash the appeal, arguing the order was interlocutory and therefore required leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the order did not finally dispose of any issue in the proceeding and was not a contempt order.

The appeal was quashed.

The appellants, estate trustees for the deceased aunt of a party to a family law action, appealed the dismissal of their motion to set aside a family law trial judgment.

The trial judgment had awarded the respondent a one-half interest in a property previously held in joint tenancy by her ex-husband and the deceased aunt.

The aunt died before trial, and her interest passed to the ex-husband by right of survivorship.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the estate trustees failed to move in a timely manner, having waited until after the ex-husband's appeal was dismissed before asserting the estate's rights.

Furthermore, the estate's claim lacked potential merit as the deceased had never taken steps to sever the joint tenancy during her lifetime.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her action against her former husband for alleged material non-disclosure when entering into their separation agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant, having chosen not to pursue further disclosure with the benefit of independent legal advice, could not resile from the agreement without demonstrating the disclosure was false, inaccurate, or misleading.

The appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence of non-disclosure, and her assertion that evidence might come to light on a pending refusals motion was speculative.

Following an appeal, the successful respondent sought costs of over $100,000.

The Court of Appeal found the claimed fees excessive for a one-day appeal that did not raise complex issues.

The court awarded the respondent costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $20,000 plus disbursements.

The appeal hearing was adjourned after partial argument because two members of the panel raised concerns about a potential conflict of interest involving a party to the proceedings, Philip Epstein, or his counsel.

The parties were directed to obtain another early date from the Court of Appeal Office, with costs of the day reserved to the panel hearing the motion.

The husband appealed a trial judgment setting aside a pre-nuptial marriage contract and ordering an equalization payment of $5.3 million, plus spousal and child support.

The trial judge set aside the contract under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act because the husband deliberately failed to disclose the value of his significant business assets, misrepresented his financial position, and interfered with the wife's independent legal advice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing that the husband's conduct warranted setting aside the contract.

The Court also held that a post-separation, market-driven decline in the value of the husband's shares did not justify an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6)(h) of the Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The parties separated, and the husband subsequently received 245,000 stock options from his employer.

The trial judge included a prorated portion of these options in the husband's net family property, finding they were earned prior to separation.

The trial judge also rejected the husband's expert valuation of his pre-separation options using the Black-Scholes method, instead using an 'if and when' approach based on the actual profit realized when the options were later exercised.

The Court of Appeal upheld the inclusion of the post-separation options but found the trial judge erred in using hindsight to value the options.

The Court held that the Black-Scholes method is an appropriate valuation approach for employee stock options where the underlying stock is publicly traded, and adjusted the equalization payment accordingly.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay a $3.3 million equalization payment, retroactive child support, ongoing child support, and costs including a $150,000 premium.

The core issues involved whether a cottage owned by the husband's numbered company constituted a matrimonial home, the valuation of his business, and the appropriateness of the support and costs awards.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision to pierce the corporate veil regarding the cottage and accepted the business valuation and support orders.

However, applying recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, the court allowed the appeal in part to set aside the $150,000 costs premium.

The respondent wife's cross-appeal seeking higher pre-judgment interest was dismissed.

The appellant father appealed findings of contempt and a suspended sentence imposed after he unilaterally removed his child to Bermuda, frustrating the respondent mother's access rights.

The father argued his appeal was timely under the Criminal Appeal Rules.

The Court of Appeal held that civil contempt proceedings arising from matrimonial litigation are governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, rendering his appeal of the contempt findings out of time.

The appeal of the sentence conditions and the mother's cross-appeal regarding child support and costs were both dismissed.

The appellant sought to reopen a family law appeal to vary the costs order following reasons in a child support case.

The Court of Appeal declined to reopen the appeal and clarified that its earlier statement that the paying spouse should ordinarily bear the child support litigation costs was confined to exceptional cases involving income vastly exceeding $150,000 and a huge disparity in ability to pay.

The court further held that any such approach remained subject to Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and, where applicable, Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules, as well as the requirement that the payee spouse have acted reasonably.

The relationship between that approach and rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules was left for another day because those rules did not apply to this case.

In a family law appeal involving an exceptionally high-income payor, the court held that the presumptive Table amount under s. 4 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines could be displaced where clear and compelling evidence showed it was inappropriate.

The court found the child support award required a fresh hearing because the trial judge had been bound by pre-Francis authority and had made insufficient findings on the child's means, needs, and circumstances.

The cross-appeal on spousal support was also allowed because the trial judge failed to consider all objectives in s. 15.2(6) of the Divorce Act.

The court dismissed the custody and wedding gift issues, but held that the wealthy payor should ordinarily bear the costs of litigating child support where the custodial parent is forced to defend the presumptive Table amount.

The appellant appealed a judgment declaring an agreement of purchase and sale of land to be void.

The agreement provided a closing date of January 21, 1970, and expressly stated that time was of the essence.

The appellant had the right to postpone the closing date but took no steps to do so.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that any other interpretation would leave the agreement open indefinitely.